My Baby Has a Complex

My Chiclette, who is now 1 year (as of November 4), seems to be getting the idea that she plays second fiddle to her sister, who is now 3 (as of October 6), mainly because, up to this point, Doodle has been the "high maintenance" one. As Doodle becomes more cooperative and willing to follow directions--but not much less demanding of my time, since she has been known to respond to Chiclette's cries, whines and wails by promptly claiming her place on my lap!--Chiclette fills in the gap. Although Chiclette has begun diving from the arms of whoever is holding her, lunging toward me in desperation, and snuggling into my shoulder, she is almost entirely unwilling to let me rock her to sleep! Her daddy rocks her to sleep; my sister rocks her to sleep. Even my younger brother--who is 13--was able to put her to sleep one night! But she fights me and fights me, whether nap or bedtime, but clearly WANTS me. And I completely lack patience. It is a symptom of juggling too many thoughts, concerns and efforts all at once. I have rarely nursed her without a computer in front of me. She nurses still--though infrequently (often not infrequently enough for my short attention span)--and has taken to clicking the button on my trackpad while nursing! Unlike Doodle, who didn't care what else I was doing, so long as I had her on my lap--or so long as she could get into it--Chiclette seems genuinely annoyed that her birth order and (previously) easy disposition means, frequently, that she waits a bit for my attention and the fulfillment of her needs. I didn't come to this conclusion all at once. I have been noticing that she seems conflicted about whether she is ready to wean, though she is drinking milk and yogurt, and eating as many meals a day as she can get from us--and though I am very ready. I am aware, also, of my increasing agitation with her clinginess, something I remember from the final days (months) of nursing Doodle, though it extends to times when she is not nursing, but is nervously rubbing her hands on my neck, etc.--a sweet gesture, if it wasn't so insistent!! Nursing my son was never like this, somehow. The girls seem to be using nursing as a way to commandeer my attention in a way that he--well, never needed to do, both because he was the first and because life was simpler back then! So it has been a concern to me that Chiclette won't go to sleep for me--at least without a fight, though she sleeps for others, as I have mentioned. Last night was bad, but today was worse. She was almost asleep once and woke when I received a phone call, then ABSOLUTELY would not go back to sleep. I was even moved to leave her in her bed crying for a bit--something I never do. So I brought her out to play for a while and eat before I had to try again, this time with Doodle along also, which is the norm at night (though that is seeming less advisable lately). This time, I had the task of figuring out what to do with both of them, as Doodle is still rocked to sleep. Doodle was very ready to settle down, but Chiclette was less so. She struggled and fidgeted and struggled, even when I had her more settled and Doodle asleep on my lap. The only way I could get her to settle down was to sing a song with her name as the main lyric. I sang her name and she looked me in the eye and relaxed immediately. No more fidgeting. And finally, she let herself sleep, content that Momma was finally, finally, focusing attention on her alone.

Dollies, revisited

I've heard of it before, but I've never seen it. I'm not sure I entirely believed that children did it. Doodle breastfed her babydoll (named "Baby B. . .") this morning. Very seriously, very discretely, very affectionately, in a "house" (made from my cardboard cutting board) on a bed of pillows. :)

Babies & Academic Professionalism

Okay, so the baby (the Chic-lette, as she has been named courtesy of Mrs. Darwin!) is not even 2 weeks old, and I already have a professional dilemma of sorts. I asked my adviser for his advice, but he is, admittedly, male, and didn't feel qualified to answer this one!! (Although he did say that he would have no problem personally with the situation I described.) On Thursday, there is a colloquium I would like to attend sponsored by the university's humanities center. A fellow-graduate student is presenting a paper on D. H. Lawrence, whom I am working on right now (trying to wrap up that pesky chapter). Actually, I think attending might jump-start my attempt to finish (if one can jump-start a wrap-up). My problem? Very small baby (well, no--very young baby!), exclusively breast fed. First issue--she is very young. I have doubts about whether I should have her out & about, but she would be kept very close to me and I'm about to lose my mind staying home most of the time. Every day or every other day I have to get out--usually just a quick ride in the car (with the baby), but it helps. So this actually sounds more attractive than it might otherwise! Second problem--silly as it sounds, I don't want to draw too much attention to myself (and my baby) or to seem like I'm trying to draw attention to myself. I'm imagining people thinking that I want people to ooh and aah over the baby, when in fact, my attitude toward such things is more the "No thank you, please don't breathe on my baby" attitude. Third--and the biggest--issue (I won't say problem) is the breastfeeding issue. The department is currently filled with swarms of mothers who do or have breastfed. Even so, there are a number of different attitudes present about the correct time & place to do such things. Many of the other grad student mothers also have alternated with bottles of breast milk or formula, which, even if I decided to do at some point, I would not do so early. The grad coordinator, who possesses a different generation's feminist notion of the place of children in one's professional life, made a comment once in a class about the scandal of a prominent scholar breastfeeding at the large national conference. In that case, it was recognized as an attempt to draw attention to herself. In my case, it would not be, but it might be interpreted as such. While generally I scorn those who are offended by breastfeeding in public, I feel a bit different about professional situations. This might be because I hate professional situations. In general, I actively seek to avoid them. Usually, if people I know are involved, I don't mind as much, but in this case, I feel awkward precisely because there are people I know involved. I don't particularly want to be sneered at with my baby for violating professional decorum. And at the same time I hate feeling hesitant. I don't like playing the game, really. Especially when I don't agree with what passes for "rules."

UPDATE: Well, I just learned that the scadalous example of breastfeeding at the national conference "featured black fishnet stockings, a black letter (maybe leather?) bustier, and a male attendent" and was not "run of the mill breastfeeding." Ha!! I am much amused.

A Breastfeeding Blog with GUTS and a little bit about me

I discovered the Black Breastfeeding Blog a few weeks ago, and I've been waiting for the right moment to introduce it. There's so much to like here, including the author's investigation into historical photographs of black women breastfeeding that are simply FASCINATING. But I was waiting for the one post that spoke to something close to my blog's world. . . And, well, this one struck a chord with me--a post with attitude by a woman who feels no need to be apologetic about the choice she has made to breastfeed, even though they are not the choices that other women have made. I find it odd anyway that promoting breastfeeding as the best (i.e. healthiest) choice for mother and baby should be so politicized and sensitive, as I've indicated before.

. . . . .
Posts are likely to be slim for a while, as my brain is occupied in many directions at once. I'm still keeping up with my class, thinking about dissertation work (and maybe inching closer to actually finishing that chapter). I'm feeling better than I should considering I gave birth less than a week ago, nursing is going great, and the toddler really does like the baby (she even threw a fit in the hospital because she thought the nurse was wheeling away OUR baby!!). There are little attention-seeking behaviors--she makes herself cry, for example, in a little squeaking "waaa"--perhaps because the baby gets so much attention when she cries that way! And she wants extra mommy-time (quite naturally). But overall, things are good. I don't feel like the world needs to stop & let me catch up, nor do I feel (as I did when the toddler was born) that I don't really want to catch up with the world anyway. The baby is beautiful, and I can't believe that a week ago I was still waiting for her. Blogging ideas are just slim, that's all!

Thinking About "Sexy," Breastfeeding (again), Purgatory, and A Strange Immortality

As I get less and less time for extended posts, I will likely have more and more of these "in brief" thoughts. I hope it doesn't get too monotonous! But there are a few things bopping around my head that I need to get onto the blog before they go away and before I can stop thinking about them and finish preparing for class!!

1) Is "sexy" a performance? - Jen of Et Tu, Jen? has picked up my "sexy breastfeeding breasts" post in order to completely turn it around. How cool is that? She asks whether "sexiness" is a valuable goal in itself, and I know where she's coming from in a way, though I see it differently. I've never really aspired to look sexy or act sexy--I guess I was trying to be intelligent and look attractive instead. An interesting discussion has ensued, mostly about the appropriateness of trying to be sexy, especially in a Catholic context, and in the context of a Catholic sacramental marriage. What strikes me is that sexiness is being represented almost exclusively as a look or an act that one puts on for other people or, in the case of "good, moral" sexiness (which is up for grabs on the other discussion), for one other person. It is never a feeling that comes from within, which is really what I was trying to evoke in my post. I have suggested "sensual"as an alternative to "sexy," both because it's not quite as loaded and because it seems to suggest a feeling--something internal--rather than a look or an action--something external. What I originally said was, "breastfeeding moms can still have sexy thoughts about their breasts." I'm not really talking about society's concept of what is sexy, but responding to the original comment that breastfeeding moms "cheapen what [their] breasts are" by breastfeeding in public, perhaps indiscreetly, or whatever. But what are your breasts anyway, when they're not a food source? Something to flaunt or somethin you appreciate the way you appreciate any part of your body that makes you feel sensual or beautiful? Anyway, they're not buying it on Jen's blog. Oh well!

2) Facebook's no breastfeeding policy - I came across something recently (I think through sitemeter) about Facebook shutting down the site of a breastfeeding mom for posting a picture of herself nursing her little one. Now hopefully most if not all of us can agree that that's not obscene, and not what they had in mind with their "no nudity" policy. However, I'm going to play devil's advocate and say that it might become more difficult for them to police the content of pages if they start differentiating the "type" or "intent" of pictures of bare anatomical features. How do we separate the nude baby in the bath family page from the child porn site? Yes, it should be clear, but it does complicate matters if we start having to address it. Also during a sitemeter browse, I noticed that someone in France did, indeed, find my "sexy breastfeeding breasts" post while searching for erotic lactation porn. Eeeeeeeew! So would the same mother who is outraged because her post was taken down feel all warm & fuzzy if some pervert was masturbating to a picture of her breastfeeding? I don't think I would, but then, I'm not going to post ANY pictures of myself or my children, so I guess it's more a matter of privacy than aesthetics. Still, tough call for Facebook. Or maybe not.

3) Purgatory - Entropy has a thought-provoking post about Purgatory, a favorite Catholic concept of mine, and how her daughter is struggling with the concept. I've already written a fair amount about it over there, so I'll cheat & repost my comment in the interest of time:

The concept of Purgatory is one I always found rather attractive--that is, after I passed my "just say no to all things Catholic" phase. Dante helped my understanding of it, predictably perhaps. (I took a course on Dante very shortly after getting my undergrad degree, and it was instrumental in my eventual conversion.) One vivid scene in Purgatorio involves one of the souls remembering his death and an angel and devil fighting over his soul. It seems his was a definite "death bed repentance" in the form of a single tear, and the devil was saying, basically, "oh, come on--that's not really genuine!" The argument worked with someone in the Inferno, but evidently this conversion of heart was real. So while he did indeed repent, there was no chance for it to be borne out in life, and even had he been able to "repay the $10," he didn't have the chance to try. So off he goes to Purgatory. I find it comforting because it means that we don't have to be impeccable, even after a conversion of heart, after repentance and penance (of course, Purgatory is also an extended opportunity for penance, and so is related to the Sacrament of Reconciliation). It takes into account our real, human failings in the face of God's mercy & forgiveness--and perfection.

And now I get hokey... It always bothered me at the end of Star Wars: Return of the Jedi that Darth Vadar could participate in and commit the number and type of sheer evil acts that he did during his life, and then, because Luke says, "No, you're really good," voila! he's good! And he joins the "good Jedi": Yoda and Obi Wan. It simply didn't seem fair. I mean, what about all the bad stuff? In Protestant theology, this wouldn't be a problem. He said sorry (sort of), was forgiven, end of story. But to imagine that the soul (yes, I'm still talking about Darth Vadar) doesn't carry a mark of all that evil is naive at best. Certainly, he has not reached the point where he should be able to participate in the joys of... well... company with the good Jedis (and here the analogy breaks down a bit). Anyway, I always thought that it was patently unfair that Darth should be judged as their equals without any reparation. I would have had him in Purgatory for a long, long time!!

Well, at the very least, I hope you find that amusing! ;)

And I wish you the best in dealing with this issue with your daughter!! My son has pretty much accepted everything seamlessly. I don't know how much he had learned at this point about Purgatory, but at any rate, I'm keeping Star Wars handy! ;)

-and-

I wonder, too, looking at Ma Beck's comment again, if certain types of sins retain a kind of hold on us--that on a level, even if we're forgiven and have really, truly repented, we are inclined (whether from shame or whatever) to replay them in our minds, to dwell on them, to keep them with us. I know I've done this. Anyway, this kind of lingering thought about sin is not appropriate for the joys of heaven, and must be burned away...

I rather like the idea of Purgatory, as you can tell, though it is tempting to feel like it takes the pressure off of me!

4) Immortality? - My daughter, who likes to peruse the VHS/DVD collection for things that have interesting pictures on the cases, has been interested in Toy Story 1 & 2 lately, which prompted some brief musings on what it means for one's immortality to depend on the existence--indeed, the youth and whim--of someone else!! This is a motif that repeats itself throughout children's books and media: consider The Velveteen Rabbit, "Puff the Magic Dragon," Jim Henson's The Christmas Toy, and then Toy Story. And children are shown to be fairly fickle in several of these examples. The Velveteen Rabbit is a bit different, since it's not immortality, but rather mortality--a "real" existence--that he achieves through being loved. Still, the dependency on the love of another--selfish love, really--and the necessity for the individual to build his/her existence around that other with no guarantee of reciprocal love--it's rather dark and existential on a level. As indeed, children's literature can often be. The odd thing is that stories that promote love and self-sacrifice are seen as positive, even mirroring Christian virtues. But I don't see that as the whole story. Unless the toy represents the perpetual "dark night of the soul," but I just don't think the creators were being that deep.

So really, would Buzz Lightyear have been better off or worse thinking that he was, indeed, The Real Buzz Lightyear? At least he would have entertained the notion that his life had its own purpose. On the other hand, he would not have been self-aware. These tease the edges of Christian notions, but fall short in disturbing ways. Consider, for example, the notion that we are called to do God's will and that when we imagine ourselves acting independently from God, Church teaching tells us that we are not seeing the whole picture and not living to the fullest extent possible. The Buzz analogy has a similar ring about it, except that the alternatives are utter dependency and self-sacrifice for uncertain love--or delusion. The Christian vision tells us what we seek to gain or lose from including God in our lives--or not.

Okay, clearly I need to turn off the TV. ;) And get some class prep done. William Morris, here I come!

It's not Just for Breastfeeding Mothers Any More!!

But this article about Southwest Airlines rather explains the loophole that allows airlines to get away with telling breastfeeding mothers to do. . . well. . . whatever it is that the flight attendants tell them to do on a given flight--cover up, stop feeding, whatever. It seems that, while Southwest claims not to have a dress code, they also reserve the right to censor passengers' outfits for various reasons, with the result that two women have brought complaints against Southwest for addressing their wardrobe choices:

Setara Qassim said a flight attendant confronted her during the trip from Tucson, Arizona, to Burbank, California, and asked whether she had a sweater to go over her green halter-style dress.

Qassim, 21, told KNBC-TV in Los Angeles she was forced to wrap a blanket around herself for the rest of the flight. She complained that if Southwest wants passengers to dress a certain way, it should publish a dress code.

Last week, 23-year-old Kayla Ebbert said a Southwest employee pulled her aside as she was preparing to board a plane departing San Diego for Tucson in July and told her she was dressed too provocatively to fly.

Ebbert, who took her case to NBC's "Today Show," said she was allowed on the plane after adjusting her sweater and short skirt. She said she was humiliated and felt the stares of other passengers who had overheard the verbal dressing-down.

Now, do you think these women were wearing anything that you haven't seen in Church? Okay, unfair question! ;)

What strikes me first is the rationale behind the censure. One was "dressed too provocatively." There clearly isn't an objective standard for this. I would like to know if the airline employees imposing these guidelines were male or female, fundamentalist, or personally turned on by the passengers' attire. (This reminds me of discussions I've seen on other blogs about whether a sexily dressed woman is responsible for others' "occasions of sin"!) But this is the passage that seemed relevant to breastfeeding in the air:

American Airlines claims the right to refuse to carry passengers for a variety of reasons, including being drunk, barefoot, having an offensive odor or being "clothed in a manner that would cause discomfort or offense to other passengers."

That's pretty broad. The example given is offensive graphics on a t-shirt, but it's not tough to see how breastfeeding falls under this jurisdiction--even if the mother is discreetly covered. (But then, some passengers (and flight attendants) find the presence of children offensive enough anyway. . .) Of course, breastfeeding is an act, not a manner of dress, but certainly if the breast were all or partially exposed, one could anticipate this regulation being invoked. I have breastfed without incident on an airplane, but it was years ago (a bit over 10 years ago, to be precise). It was probably Southwest. But then, I don't like sitting by other people anyway, so there was likely no one there but my husband, and he wouldn't have complained!

Time for Another Madonna Lactans -or- Breastfeeding as Sacred Sensuality

I have been "pacing" my breastfeeding Virgin images, which I intended, though I had not intended to lose track of them for so long. Though there is a sensuality in the Madonna Lactans images, the sensuality is not to be confused with "sexuality," which was the subject of my past breastfeeding post. Rather, the sensual nature of mother-child contact is shown here in a sacred context, as the contact between mother and child is also the scene of the nurturing of the Son of God.

Kate commented on my last breastfeeding post that it is always good to take the opportunity to appreciate the spirituality of day-to-day activities, and I know that's a useful reminder for me. I have posted before on maternal spirituality, and how I find it difficult to see daily tasks as a path to holiness in the manner of a Saint Therese's "Little Way." Breastfeeding, in practice, is not very spiritual for me when I'm doing it. There are usually other distractions. Though it is nice sometimes to have the presence of mind to realize that this is not just a mundane reason to stop whatever else I was doing; rather it is an excuse to stop what I'm doing and focus on my son or daughter, whom I may shuffle aside for one reason or another at other times. Interestingly, this is not what Michelangelo portrays here. Rather, this Virgin is somewhat distracted from her rather older Christ Child, perhaps anticipating that the supper will burn! She is in motion, and even the unfinished, sketchy nature of the image conveys the motion, as my life has been in motion of late--so much so, that I have not even thought of maternal spirituality, or of much that is spiritual. Other bloggers help me with that by posting their own reminders, for which I am constantly grateful. I DID learn recently that Schubert's 'Ave Maria' has a strangely calming effect on me when I am agitated. Another nice reminder, and one of the few semi-spiritual connections I have made of late.

Breastfeeding Virgin - Madonna Lactans - Francisco de Zurbarán

I admit to being, actually, a little short on inspiration for my series of Mary-posts. I am unsure of everything from how to title the posts to how to begin them! But I decided, nevertheless, to start with an artist whom I discovered when I was breastfeeding my daughter and came across the Our Lady of La Leche shrine mentioned in an article. I forget now where the article was posted or published, but it was written by Marion Amberg about couples who, hoping for an end to their fertility problems, took pilgrimages to the shrine. After learning about this particular representation of Our Lady, I traced it on the internet and learned of the Grotto of the Milk in Bethlehem with its interesting devotion. Then, I sought representations of the Virgin breastfeeding from throughout art history. I have a few favorites, among them this painting titled Holy Family by Francisco de Zurbarán. I believe I found it on a site that sells posters, and since I was only intending it for personal use, I didn't think about recording the original site. But as long as nobody tells my composition students, it'll juts be between us!

I find this a particularly touching image. I like the portrayal of the affection that exists between the three members of the Holy Family. I also think that the involvement of Joseph in this intimate moment of feeding between Mother and Child is rather profound. It seems that the painted must have had an intimate knowledge of breastfeeding, as this is a very tender moment, not portrayed in a static manner at all. The naturalism of the scene is quite striking. Another interesting feature of the painting is that the figures seem to be clad in rather realistic and appropriate garments. I did find that this particular painter is from Extremadura--a rather arid and impoverished region of Spain, and the house and landscape does not appear too unlike the scenery in contemporary films set in Extremadura. Nevertheless, this is believable as a first century scene from the Middle East or northern Africa.

On a site called Olga's Gallery, I discovered some biographical information on Francisco de Zurbarán (there are some popups on the original site):

A highly original Spanish artist, Francisco de Zurbarán, until recently was not known beyond Spain. His works are rarely met in European museums and are highly appreciated by collectors.
He was born in Fuente de Cantos (Estremadura) into the family of a petty merchant. His professional training he received in Seville in 1616/17 in the workshop of Pedro Diaz da Villanueva. Then he settled near his birthplace to paint a large number of religious pictures for the monasteries and churches.
In Seville, where he settled in 1629, he became the leading artist. There he produced many altarpieces and decorated a number of monasteries with extensive fresco style cycles. In 1630-1645, Zurbarán executed a lot of paintings of different saints; they are evidence of his talent as a portraitist. They are usually separate figures in full height, with a dark or neutral background. These paintings were used for decoration of the churches and were hung on both sides of a central painting or altar. Zurbarán executed a series of such paintings for churches and also for the Hospital de la Sangre in Seville.
His style, with massively simple figures and objects, clear, sober colors and deep solemnity of feeling expressed in thickly applied paint, made him the ideal painter of the austere religion of Spain.
His fortunes fell with Murillo's rise. In 1658 he moved to Madrid, where he entered the Santiago Order. In order to support himself he had to become an art dealer, though he was not successful in business either. He died in Madrid in 1664 in poverty.

The site also includes a number of de Zurbarán's other paintings, including two of the Immaculate Conception. Most of those included on this gallery page are religious-themed paintings, with several depicting the Virgin Mary. An additional painting titled The Virgin with Infant Christ also depicts Mother and Child breastfeeding. Again, there is a tenderness between mother and child that is very natural. The Infant reaches to caress the Mother's other breast while being held tight against His Mother. She glances down at him in utter absorbtion. Again, the dress of the figures suggests an idealized past rather than the artist's present. The figures are alone against a shadowy background with a nonspecific light source illuminating the upper left hand corner--enough to suggest the Light brought into the world by this woman who now nourishes Him at her breast. I may be wrong, but it appears that Mary even has a snack at her side to nourish her body in order to nourish her Child--a nice touch, if I am reading it correctly. Whether he is working with a model (as is likely) or from an ideal in his head, both Mother and Child remain consistent (to my eye) between the two paintings by de Zurbarán.

Bending low and cradling Him near,
Feeling his warmth and smelling his milky breath,
Mother of God, she feeds Him of herself;
And glancing into Joseph's tender eyes
She reaches him amid the baby's sighs.