The 2011 housing allowance rates came out. For this zip code and Thak's rank, it was a $200 DECREASE. Now that won't factor as a pay cut for those already here. There's something called rate protection, which basically means, if this happens, you get to keep the same rate you were getting rather than take a pay cut. We'll continue to receive housing at the 2010 rate, which is good, because at the 2011 rate, we wouldn't be able to afford our house.
Even though this doesn't effect us directly, I still think it's stupid. For one, housing prices in this area are climbing every single day, so you DECREASE housing allowance for three ranks? (And those ranks are SSG, 1LT, and WO1, so in other words, all leaders of some variety.) The rest saw no increase to speak of, except the highest ranks, which saw a huge jump, but the majority remained very steady, except our peers, who will be very hard up financially upon reporting here in 2011. Aside from the obvious, I think this is dumb for a few reasons.
First of all, there is nowhere near enough post housing, and the way they break down the ranks for it here, it was actually an asset that Staff Sergeants could do better on the economy than on post, because the housing wait list that includes that rank is far and away the longest. Taking SSG's essentially out of the equation by making living on the economy a more attractive option actually did a lot to free up post housing (although there still wasn't nearly enough). Think that list is a nightmare now? Wait until 2011 hits and every SSG who reports here signs up. Get ready for a 3 year wait for housing.
Secondly, there were a few apartment complexes that were actually still affordable for the lower-enlisted and the Buck Sergeants. They may not be able to afford houses here, at least not in safe neighborhoods, but there were a few good complexes they could get into no problem, and afford a place that would work for them until they came up for post housing a couple years later. Now, they'll get to compete for what units those complexes have, with newly arriving SSG's, too. We all know how supply and demand works. The demand increases for the product, the cost rises. These complexes will no longer be affordable for anybody due to the increased demand.
Finally, all of this will culminate in magnifying the poverty already seen among our military community here. I said when I arrived here that I'd never seen so many military families so hard up for money, and I was telling the absolute truth. People say the cost of living here is low, but I have no idea where they get those figures. When compared dollar for dollar, and income to costs, this place stacks up about even with LA. Yet, we have so many bad neighborhoods and cheap places that aren't worth a damn, that drag the averages down enough that Defense Department analysts who have probably never set foot in this place, get the idea that it's cheaper than Ft. Stewart of Ft. Hood (both widely known to be cheap duty stations, and really, they are), and the housing allowance, the component of military pay that is supposed to adjust it to each location, is disproportionately low as a result. Consequently, people do not live nearly as well here as they do other places. We do fine because Thak has enough rank to make it so, but anyone with even one stripe less, is suffering here. This decrease in housing allowance at such a strategic level will screw a lot of people, many of whom are already screwed pretty hard by this place.
We don't like it, DOD. We don't like it at all. Our Garrison Commander has sent it back to the Department of the Army for review. We don't know what will happen, probably nothing, but our good Colonel is trying his best.
I will say, I don't care if they give a raise. We're fine with it just staying steady as it will for us due to the rate protection clause. Just don't screw the in-coming soldiers. Give them what we're getting. Hold the rate steady for each rank. We don't need a raise, just no decreases, please!
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
I fear no sushi.
I like sushi. I've never really understood why pregnant women aren't supposed to eat it. I mean, I highly doubt women in Japan go cold turkey on the sashimi the minute they pee on a stick and see two lines. In fact, every Japanese woman I know thinks this American custom of not eating sushi during pregnancy is a little crazy. Because of this, I asked Alyson (who is not Japanese, but does know a thing or two about pregnancies) about it at our last appointment and she said she eats sushi while pregnant, and sees no problem with it. She said she thinks it's one of those things that someone's "friend of a friend of a friend had something go wrong so now nobody can eat sushi during pregnancy" type of things. I tend to agree. Most every custom of mainstream American pregnancy is based on hearsay, or at best, very rare instances. In fact, I'm going to bet more babies and moms have been harmed by labor induction (which a majority of American women gladly partake in) than eating sushi.
I ate sushi for lunch today. It was very good. Later this afternoon, I was out, and heard some women behind me who were also pregnant, talking about how they wanted sushi so bad, and had their favorite sushi places' menus in their hospital bags so they could eat it right after they had their babies.
I chuckled quietly to myself, and was glad to not be inhibited by such strange restrictions.
I ate sushi for lunch today. It was very good. Later this afternoon, I was out, and heard some women behind me who were also pregnant, talking about how they wanted sushi so bad, and had their favorite sushi places' menus in their hospital bags so they could eat it right after they had their babies.
I chuckled quietly to myself, and was glad to not be inhibited by such strange restrictions.
I talk to my kids, and you should, too.
Well, I mean, not necessarily to mine, although you can if you want to. Really, you should talk to yours.
I wasn't feeling all that good, and didn't want to make the trip all the way across town to my usual grocery store, so I just hit up the Commissary for the final half of this month's groceries. It was the first time in months that I'd been in the Commissary (I was trying to get used to civilian shopping, which, I guess, is kind of a moot point now that we won't be losing our benefits anytime soon!) and I was surprised by a couple things.
For one, they way I saw other people treat their kids, in about 70% of cases, was appalling. Yelling, yanking, "GET OVER HERE!", "SHUT UP!" You name it. It was total rubbish. I don't care how many kids you have, or how bad they're acting up, that does not solve the problem. It makes it worse. I have a 7-year-old drama queen of my very own, so I understand how kids can be, but I also understand that yelling and commanding does absolutely nothing.
For another. I would like to know why people looked at me like I was nuts for talking with Orren. Do I really expect him to answer me back when I ask him how many packets of frozen raspberries he thinks we need? Well, no, but someday soon, he might count them out with me as I load them into the cart, because he's heard it enough times to learn. No, he doesn't tell me if he likes this asparagus or that one, but he tries to say "asparagus", which isn't bad for a guy who's just shy of two years old. Plus, if you notice, my kid isn't one who's pitching a fit. He also DOES talk back some! He said, "Mom? Bana, pweae?" (Mom, banana please) when we walked past the bananas, and he got to pick out his bananas. He was happy. Kids like to be heard, especially little kids who just realized that they have an opinion on stuff. Why am I the nutjob for realizing this, and talking to my son? So what if he's little? He's still a full fledged person, and can be an active participant in his day.
Some would allege that I'm spoiling him because he gets choices, but he's just so much happier that way. He may not like to sit in a grocery cart for as long as it takes to get everything we need, but he doesn't mind it if he gets to help pick out the fruits and veggies. He may not like to slow down for a diaper change, but he doesn't mind it so much if he gets to choose what color diaper he puts on (we are working on colors with him right now. He knows 12 body parts already, and a few animal sounds, so we're still working on animal sounds, but also on colors). He may not want to drink water when he asked for juice, but when he gets to choose what color cup he wants, he'll go for it sometimes. Kids love to have choices, and they love to be acknowledged.
I can tell you one thing for sure. There is nothing wrong with having a conversation with a 2-year-old. Someday, they'll answer you back.
I wasn't feeling all that good, and didn't want to make the trip all the way across town to my usual grocery store, so I just hit up the Commissary for the final half of this month's groceries. It was the first time in months that I'd been in the Commissary (I was trying to get used to civilian shopping, which, I guess, is kind of a moot point now that we won't be losing our benefits anytime soon!) and I was surprised by a couple things.
For one, they way I saw other people treat their kids, in about 70% of cases, was appalling. Yelling, yanking, "GET OVER HERE!", "SHUT UP!" You name it. It was total rubbish. I don't care how many kids you have, or how bad they're acting up, that does not solve the problem. It makes it worse. I have a 7-year-old drama queen of my very own, so I understand how kids can be, but I also understand that yelling and commanding does absolutely nothing.
For another. I would like to know why people looked at me like I was nuts for talking with Orren. Do I really expect him to answer me back when I ask him how many packets of frozen raspberries he thinks we need? Well, no, but someday soon, he might count them out with me as I load them into the cart, because he's heard it enough times to learn. No, he doesn't tell me if he likes this asparagus or that one, but he tries to say "asparagus", which isn't bad for a guy who's just shy of two years old. Plus, if you notice, my kid isn't one who's pitching a fit. He also DOES talk back some! He said, "Mom? Bana, pweae?" (Mom, banana please) when we walked past the bananas, and he got to pick out his bananas. He was happy. Kids like to be heard, especially little kids who just realized that they have an opinion on stuff. Why am I the nutjob for realizing this, and talking to my son? So what if he's little? He's still a full fledged person, and can be an active participant in his day.
Some would allege that I'm spoiling him because he gets choices, but he's just so much happier that way. He may not like to sit in a grocery cart for as long as it takes to get everything we need, but he doesn't mind it if he gets to help pick out the fruits and veggies. He may not like to slow down for a diaper change, but he doesn't mind it so much if he gets to choose what color diaper he puts on (we are working on colors with him right now. He knows 12 body parts already, and a few animal sounds, so we're still working on animal sounds, but also on colors). He may not want to drink water when he asked for juice, but when he gets to choose what color cup he wants, he'll go for it sometimes. Kids love to have choices, and they love to be acknowledged.
I can tell you one thing for sure. There is nothing wrong with having a conversation with a 2-year-old. Someday, they'll answer you back.
So what ARE you willing to pay for?
I hate school fundraisers. Preservative-riddled cookie dough, overpriced wrapping paper, infinite opportunities to annoy friends and relatives to buy crap they never wanted in the first place... It's the bane of every parent's existence! A lot of parents, myself included, totally refuse to do them. (Erin's current school doesn't do them.) There are other, better, ways to raise money for a school. Some principals have taken to having a "Money Bomb" or "Fundraiser Gala" at the beginning of the year, where parents donate money and if they donate enough, there will be no fundraisers. Others have different events, or charge for no-uniform days, or ice cream days, dances, or pizza parties. There are many ways to raise money.
Erin's school relies on donations. I joke about how the tuition is the only thing that's free there, but really, we don't mind. The fact is, somebody's got to pay for the costs of running the school, and I'd rather just donate money than be asked a million times to sell crap that nobody wants anyhow. The money has to come from somewhere, and one way or another, it's coming from the parents' bank accounts, so I'd rather just give it up front and forget about it for the rest of the year.
I know this other mom who has two kids in high school and one about to finish Elementary school. She was complaining up one side and down the other yesterday about how they expected her to pay for her daughter's share of a barbecue at school, and how they had to pay to for a free-dress day, and how they had to pay for tickets to the dances and football games, and stuff like that. She called it, "the most money hungry school in the world". OK, understood. They're asking for a lot of money. I asked her if they also fundraised a lot. She said no, they'd done one fundraiser that wasn't a big success, and I told her, "Well, the money's got to come from somewhere. If the fundraiser didn't do it, then how else would they get it if not from these cheap fundraisers with wide appeal?" Every kid in the school will pay $1 to shed their uniform for a day. That's a quick $500 right there, with absolutely no overhead cost. You have a school-wide barbecue for lunch that same day, charge $4 a plate, and probably make $500 more! It's actually very smart, and each family is only out $5 per kid on that day. It's easy to get small donations like that, and being a public school, it has to be kept like that because if they did what Erin's school did and said, for example, "You will donate $50 for supplies, $50 for grounds, $300 for music, $75 for athletics, etc....." then the parents would tell them they were nuts. Erin's school is in a different position because anyone who doesn't like it can leave, and those who want to be there take it for what it is. In a public school, small donations are easier to get, and they have to come with something (like a barbecue plate, or the privilege of not wearing a uniform for a day).
This mom did not like hearing that somebody has to donate to the school, and since her kids are reaping the benefits of being there just like every other kid, it should be her just as much as every other parent. It's really true, though. What do people expect? They want this great education without doing anything at all for it. They want to be able to throw their kids on a bus in the morning, and forget about it all day long until the bus brings them home in the afternoon, never contribute a dime, and put in absolutely zero effort. If there is one thing I've learned in the few years Erin has been school-age, it is that that does not work. You get what you give. We've given more (time, money, effort...) to VDF School, and gotten more out of it than we ever imagined we could get out of a school. You get what you give, and somebody's got to do it. Why NOT you?
Erin's school relies on donations. I joke about how the tuition is the only thing that's free there, but really, we don't mind. The fact is, somebody's got to pay for the costs of running the school, and I'd rather just donate money than be asked a million times to sell crap that nobody wants anyhow. The money has to come from somewhere, and one way or another, it's coming from the parents' bank accounts, so I'd rather just give it up front and forget about it for the rest of the year.
I know this other mom who has two kids in high school and one about to finish Elementary school. She was complaining up one side and down the other yesterday about how they expected her to pay for her daughter's share of a barbecue at school, and how they had to pay to for a free-dress day, and how they had to pay for tickets to the dances and football games, and stuff like that. She called it, "the most money hungry school in the world". OK, understood. They're asking for a lot of money. I asked her if they also fundraised a lot. She said no, they'd done one fundraiser that wasn't a big success, and I told her, "Well, the money's got to come from somewhere. If the fundraiser didn't do it, then how else would they get it if not from these cheap fundraisers with wide appeal?" Every kid in the school will pay $1 to shed their uniform for a day. That's a quick $500 right there, with absolutely no overhead cost. You have a school-wide barbecue for lunch that same day, charge $4 a plate, and probably make $500 more! It's actually very smart, and each family is only out $5 per kid on that day. It's easy to get small donations like that, and being a public school, it has to be kept like that because if they did what Erin's school did and said, for example, "You will donate $50 for supplies, $50 for grounds, $300 for music, $75 for athletics, etc....." then the parents would tell them they were nuts. Erin's school is in a different position because anyone who doesn't like it can leave, and those who want to be there take it for what it is. In a public school, small donations are easier to get, and they have to come with something (like a barbecue plate, or the privilege of not wearing a uniform for a day).
This mom did not like hearing that somebody has to donate to the school, and since her kids are reaping the benefits of being there just like every other kid, it should be her just as much as every other parent. It's really true, though. What do people expect? They want this great education without doing anything at all for it. They want to be able to throw their kids on a bus in the morning, and forget about it all day long until the bus brings them home in the afternoon, never contribute a dime, and put in absolutely zero effort. If there is one thing I've learned in the few years Erin has been school-age, it is that that does not work. You get what you give. We've given more (time, money, effort...) to VDF School, and gotten more out of it than we ever imagined we could get out of a school. You get what you give, and somebody's got to do it. Why NOT you?
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
What's your unit?
I cannot even tell you how many times someone has tried to tell me what unit their husband, or their friend, or their son, or whomever, is in, and they say something like, "Yeah, he's in A Co, 1st Cavalry Division." or, "She's in 3rd Platoon." to which I reply, "3rd platoon what?" and they say, "Vilsek, Germany."
OK, people. Here's what you just told me the equivalent of:
"What's your address?"
"4 Maple Street, Earth."
I have no idea what unit your relative, friend, or spouse is in if you don't give the unit information correctly, so I'm about to tell you how to do it. First of all, you need to understand how Army unit structure works, from the bottom up, so here we go (note that all these numbers are approximate, and averages. There's variation in all of them, but this gives you some idea.):
Soldier
Buddy team (2 soldiers)
Team (4 or 5 soldiers)
Squad (2 teams)
Platoon (3-4 squads)
Company (4-6 platoons)
Battalion (3-10 companies)
Brigade (5-10 battalions)
Division (4-6 brigades)
Corps (several posts, and divisions thereof)
Command (most soldiers are FORSCOM unless they're Spec Ops, then they're SOCOM, and if they're in training or train soldiers, they're TRADOC)
Army
So technically, MY unit when I was in Basic would be:
PVT L, Team B leader, 3rd Squad, 3rd Platoon, C Co (Crazy Charlie! What what!), 1st Battalion, 48th Infantry Regiment, 1st Training Brigade, TRADOC.
Nobody gives units like that, though. How freaking ridiculous. Most of the time, a company and battalion will suffice if you're talking with people who know what brigade you're with. In Basic, for example, I said, "I'm in Charlie 1-48." and people knew what I was talking about.
More often, it would be better to give company, battalion, brigade, and division. I could say, for example, "My husband is in HHC, 125th BSB, 3rd Brigade, 1st Armored Division." Now, if you're dealing with other military people you'll hear something more like, "HHC, 125th, over in 3-1." and they'll know what that means. It includes all the same information, though.
So remember, if you want to find out if our husbands are in the same unit, this is the order you do it:
Company
Battalion
Brigade
Division
Do that, and EVERYBODY will know what you're talking about.
OK, people. Here's what you just told me the equivalent of:
"What's your address?"
"4 Maple Street, Earth."
I have no idea what unit your relative, friend, or spouse is in if you don't give the unit information correctly, so I'm about to tell you how to do it. First of all, you need to understand how Army unit structure works, from the bottom up, so here we go (note that all these numbers are approximate, and averages. There's variation in all of them, but this gives you some idea.):
Soldier
Buddy team (2 soldiers)
Team (4 or 5 soldiers)
Squad (2 teams)
Platoon (3-4 squads)
Company (4-6 platoons)
Battalion (3-10 companies)
Brigade (5-10 battalions)
Division (4-6 brigades)
Corps (several posts, and divisions thereof)
Command (most soldiers are FORSCOM unless they're Spec Ops, then they're SOCOM, and if they're in training or train soldiers, they're TRADOC)
Army
So technically, MY unit when I was in Basic would be:
PVT L, Team B leader, 3rd Squad, 3rd Platoon, C Co (Crazy Charlie! What what!), 1st Battalion, 48th Infantry Regiment, 1st Training Brigade, TRADOC.
Nobody gives units like that, though. How freaking ridiculous. Most of the time, a company and battalion will suffice if you're talking with people who know what brigade you're with. In Basic, for example, I said, "I'm in Charlie 1-48." and people knew what I was talking about.
More often, it would be better to give company, battalion, brigade, and division. I could say, for example, "My husband is in HHC, 125th BSB, 3rd Brigade, 1st Armored Division." Now, if you're dealing with other military people you'll hear something more like, "HHC, 125th, over in 3-1." and they'll know what that means. It includes all the same information, though.
So remember, if you want to find out if our husbands are in the same unit, this is the order you do it:
Company
Battalion
Brigade
Division
Do that, and EVERYBODY will know what you're talking about.
I am an Army Reserve wife.
Well... in a few months anyhow. Thak and I saw the Guard and Reserve recruiters today. He chose a slot as a mechanic instructor right here in El Paso, and it is a Sergeant First Class slot, so he will probably be promoted next year. He will have to be away for a little bit of training (before he can be promoted particularly), and will drill one weekend a month, and two weeks in the summer. He will have two years of stabilization with no deployments, and we will keep some of our military benefits. He has chosen a two year contract, which he will sign the final version of, week after next.
I think it's a great decision. We really didn't want to throw away 18.5 years. At the end of his contract, we'll decide whether he stays or gets out. Since he'll have 20 years of service at that point in time, he will be able to drop a retirement packet, and be in line for a very nice pension starting at the age of 60. We found out that since he served 14 years Active Duty, his pension will be a lot better than a normal Reserve one, nearly as good as a comparable rank's Active Duty one, and with the job he chose, retiring as a Sergeant First Class will be an added benefit.
They offered full time National Guard slots also, but we chose this one because we also want to try the private sector so that Thak's schooling that we've sacrificed so much for would not be for nothing, and so that we can use the Reserve as a transition to just plain old private sector if that's what we want to do. As it is, the timing is amazing. The pay he'll receive for his drills once a month amounts to my car payment. We will keep our health insurance for free for six months, and after that, will pay to keep it, but only a couple hundred a month, far less than civilian policies. When he is eligible to get out of the Reserve, we will have both vehicles paid off, and will be out of the baby stage with Chaiyo/Sirikit (so less pediatrician bills), so we'll be a lot more set financially to transition fully to the private sector and never look back. We just need Thak to do these two years in the Reserve to make our transition less rough. If we like it, he'll stay. If not, he'll retire, and we'll live happily ever after, as veterans and nothing else.
The ball is in our court, but for the next two years, we are an Army Reserve family, which frankly, we don't mind a bit.
I think it's a great decision. We really didn't want to throw away 18.5 years. At the end of his contract, we'll decide whether he stays or gets out. Since he'll have 20 years of service at that point in time, he will be able to drop a retirement packet, and be in line for a very nice pension starting at the age of 60. We found out that since he served 14 years Active Duty, his pension will be a lot better than a normal Reserve one, nearly as good as a comparable rank's Active Duty one, and with the job he chose, retiring as a Sergeant First Class will be an added benefit.
They offered full time National Guard slots also, but we chose this one because we also want to try the private sector so that Thak's schooling that we've sacrificed so much for would not be for nothing, and so that we can use the Reserve as a transition to just plain old private sector if that's what we want to do. As it is, the timing is amazing. The pay he'll receive for his drills once a month amounts to my car payment. We will keep our health insurance for free for six months, and after that, will pay to keep it, but only a couple hundred a month, far less than civilian policies. When he is eligible to get out of the Reserve, we will have both vehicles paid off, and will be out of the baby stage with Chaiyo/Sirikit (so less pediatrician bills), so we'll be a lot more set financially to transition fully to the private sector and never look back. We just need Thak to do these two years in the Reserve to make our transition less rough. If we like it, he'll stay. If not, he'll retire, and we'll live happily ever after, as veterans and nothing else.
The ball is in our court, but for the next two years, we are an Army Reserve family, which frankly, we don't mind a bit.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Do not fear big babies.
Someone told me today that attempting a natural birth with a large baby is unsafe. That has to be the biggest line of misinformed horseshit I've encountered in at least a couple days. Yet I don't actually fault this woman. She was just told by the doctors at Ye Olde Butcher Shop (the Army hospital) that she's having a "large" baby. She took that to mean ten pounds. That's kind of a leap, of course, because "large" can mean anything. I know people who think their 7 pounders were "large" (To me, that's tiny!). The mainstream medical profession classifies anything above about 9 pounds even as a case of "macrosomia" (quite directly: "large body". To which I say, take your false pathology and shove it somewhere large.) Most midwives I know don't really consider anything abnormally large until we start talking 10 pounds or more, and that's about where I fall in on this line of thought. Yet the thing is that even in those cases where the baby is big by anyone's standard, in all but the very rarest of cases, the mom who grew that baby, can birth that baby. Mother Nature isn't stupid, and hundreds of thousands of years of evolution can't be wrong.
As I said before, this "macrosomia" label that the mainstream medical practitioners love to slap on people is false pathology, and exists only to scare women into thinking something is wrong when it's not. Why would it be wrong to have a big baby? If you grew it, your pelvic rim is big enough to accommodate it. There is nothing pathological about it. You grow what you can birth, and you birth what you grew. Our genes equip us with the ability to do that. The only people who may have to worry about a true case of cephalo-pelvic disproportion (aka, a too big baby) are diabetics. Thak was a c-section baby for this very reason. His mom was diabetic. The vast majority of people are not diabetic, though, and for those of us who aren't (and even for the vast majority who are), we grow what we can birth, nearly invariably. Don't let some doctor scare you into thinking otherwise.
The other thing that occurs to me is how I'd like to slap some of these doctors. First of all, their ultrasound measuring techniques are very unreliable. I know dozens of people who were told they were having a 12 pound baby, and induced early, only to have a 5 pound premie who spent a month in the NICU recovering from its untimely birth. In fact, I don't know one person who's been told they're having some massive baby, and actually had one over 7.5 pounds. Ultrasound measuring techniques are highly inaccurate. Palpation by an experienced practitioner is very accurate. Both times, my midwives have predicted my babies' weights correctly via external paplation, right down to the ounce. The other thing is, WHY are these fear mongering doctors telling these women how big they think their babies are? What good would that information be to them? In both cases, as I said, my midwives guessed my babies' weights correctly, but they didn't tell me either time. It would only have scared me, and that would have done far more harm than a large baby on its own ever could. They knew that, and they also knew that I would have no problem delivering the babies I grew, so they didn't tell me anything that would have caused harm to my thought process going into the birth.
It is not unsafe to have a natural birth with a large baby. I labored completely alone, unassisted, with Orren, all the way to the very end when I had my awesome midwife help me through the very final stage, and I can assure you, every minute of that labor was about as safe as life gets. (Really, how safe is life in general? Think about it.) The fact that Orren was 9 pounds and 9 ounces did not make it a difficult labor, nor did it make it unsafe, nor did it harm me in the least. It was the perfect birth, totally normal, outstandingly human, not one single intervention, nearly no stress, and hardly any of what I would consider pain. That's with a baby most people would consider huge. Obviously it wasn't unsafe to have a more natural birth than most people can imagine with him.
It IS, however, very unsafe to labor in a fearful way. If you are fearful, you won't be relaxed enough to dilate right. Your muscles may be too tense to allow the baby to get into a good position. You could end up with interventions which carry their own set of risks. Fear is the biggest threat to a successful birth. If you're scared of having a large baby, you may give yourself problems that you wouldn't have had otherwise.
The key is to realize that you were made for what you get, and what you look like on the outside has nothing to do with it. People are shocked that I have such large babies and am so "tiny", but on the inside, I'm not tiny at all, and I am strong. So is everyone else who can grow big healthy babies. If you can grow it, you can bring it out into the world. That is true in all but the rarest of cases. I am not a believer in organized religion, but most people are. If so many can believe in such an abstract concept as an all powerful deity, who governs our every move to some extent, why is it such a stretch to believe in yourself? Don't be scared of large babies. Just enjoy the ride, and know that at the end, you'll have one hell of a story to tell.
As I said before, this "macrosomia" label that the mainstream medical practitioners love to slap on people is false pathology, and exists only to scare women into thinking something is wrong when it's not. Why would it be wrong to have a big baby? If you grew it, your pelvic rim is big enough to accommodate it. There is nothing pathological about it. You grow what you can birth, and you birth what you grew. Our genes equip us with the ability to do that. The only people who may have to worry about a true case of cephalo-pelvic disproportion (aka, a too big baby) are diabetics. Thak was a c-section baby for this very reason. His mom was diabetic. The vast majority of people are not diabetic, though, and for those of us who aren't (and even for the vast majority who are), we grow what we can birth, nearly invariably. Don't let some doctor scare you into thinking otherwise.
The other thing that occurs to me is how I'd like to slap some of these doctors. First of all, their ultrasound measuring techniques are very unreliable. I know dozens of people who were told they were having a 12 pound baby, and induced early, only to have a 5 pound premie who spent a month in the NICU recovering from its untimely birth. In fact, I don't know one person who's been told they're having some massive baby, and actually had one over 7.5 pounds. Ultrasound measuring techniques are highly inaccurate. Palpation by an experienced practitioner is very accurate. Both times, my midwives have predicted my babies' weights correctly via external paplation, right down to the ounce. The other thing is, WHY are these fear mongering doctors telling these women how big they think their babies are? What good would that information be to them? In both cases, as I said, my midwives guessed my babies' weights correctly, but they didn't tell me either time. It would only have scared me, and that would have done far more harm than a large baby on its own ever could. They knew that, and they also knew that I would have no problem delivering the babies I grew, so they didn't tell me anything that would have caused harm to my thought process going into the birth.
It is not unsafe to have a natural birth with a large baby. I labored completely alone, unassisted, with Orren, all the way to the very end when I had my awesome midwife help me through the very final stage, and I can assure you, every minute of that labor was about as safe as life gets. (Really, how safe is life in general? Think about it.) The fact that Orren was 9 pounds and 9 ounces did not make it a difficult labor, nor did it make it unsafe, nor did it harm me in the least. It was the perfect birth, totally normal, outstandingly human, not one single intervention, nearly no stress, and hardly any of what I would consider pain. That's with a baby most people would consider huge. Obviously it wasn't unsafe to have a more natural birth than most people can imagine with him.
It IS, however, very unsafe to labor in a fearful way. If you are fearful, you won't be relaxed enough to dilate right. Your muscles may be too tense to allow the baby to get into a good position. You could end up with interventions which carry their own set of risks. Fear is the biggest threat to a successful birth. If you're scared of having a large baby, you may give yourself problems that you wouldn't have had otherwise.
The key is to realize that you were made for what you get, and what you look like on the outside has nothing to do with it. People are shocked that I have such large babies and am so "tiny", but on the inside, I'm not tiny at all, and I am strong. So is everyone else who can grow big healthy babies. If you can grow it, you can bring it out into the world. That is true in all but the rarest of cases. I am not a believer in organized religion, but most people are. If so many can believe in such an abstract concept as an all powerful deity, who governs our every move to some extent, why is it such a stretch to believe in yourself? Don't be scared of large babies. Just enjoy the ride, and know that at the end, you'll have one hell of a story to tell.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
