|
Motherhood
August 25, 2003
When I was pregnant with my first child I had a maternity outfit
consisting of a bright scarlet knit top and matching slacks. When I
wore it in the late stages my husband joked affectionately that I was
his "big red tomato," and I very much enjoyed that image of myself as
ripe, glowing and full of juices.
Twenty-four hours after my
daughter was born I was weeping in the bathroom (so my husband and the
other new mothers in the 4-bed hospital room wouldn't know) about how
fat and hideous I was and how hard it was going to be to lose all the
fecund weight I'd put on during the pregnancy.
I was SUPPOSED
to be happy and thrilled about being a mother. The pregnancy had gone
swimmingly, the labor was intense but amazingly brief for a first, and
my daughter was healthy and exquisite. So why was I such an
embarrassing emotional wreck all of a sudden?
I'd heard about
post-partum depression, of course, but I assumed *I* was going to be
immune. *I* was emotionally strong, I was sensible enough to know that
things would not be perfect after the baby arrived and that I had to be
flexible and mature enough to face and deal with reality as it evolved.
Intellectually and mentally I felt fully prepared to handle anything. I
might, I conceded (sensibly), be a little surprised every now and
again, but because I had read everything I could get my hands on about
infancy and motherhood, it was going to be easier for me to cope with
the big changes ahead than it was for other, more ignorant women.
So,
okay, I decided (sensibly) I might feel a little blue for a couple of
days after I brought the baby home, I could understand that. My
hormones would be in flux and I might not be getting enough sleep. So
if I started feeling down at any point, I would just tell myself that
everything was okay, it was natural to feel that way, and presto! I'd
just talk myself into straightening up and flying right. I was very
smart, very educated, and very practical. I was going to be a special
case in this motherhood game. If I had any depression at all -- which I
heartily doubted I would -- a "merely hormonal" moment or two wouldn't
be a big deal for ME!
Hoo, boy.
I not only got depressed, I felt ASHAMED of feeling depressed, and that made everything worse.
Even before I left the hospital I was realizing that this new adventure
called motherhood MIGHT not be amenable to my interior pep talks. I
woke from one fitful hospital sleep in which I was mentally berating my
new mother room-mates for not taking care of their crying babies to
discover that it was MY baby who was crying her little heart out while
Mommy slept (more shame). I fell asleep with her on my chest (another
no-no!) and woke again to find that she had evacuated about a quart of
gooey black new-baby feces all over us both (even the newborn sized
diapers were too big). So at three in the morning I was in the hospital
bathroom again, cleaning us both up, crying (again). What a mess, I kept thinking, what a mess, what a mess, what a mess. And it wasn't just the shit I was thinking about.
August 26, 2003
My daughter was a restless baby and a weak nurser (as I only
realized after I had my son, who had a Hoover of a mouth), so my milk
production wasn't enough to really fill her up at any given feeding. As
a result we got into a bad schedule of an inadequate feeding every two
hours. I couldn't sleep, she couldn't sleep, we were going crazy. It
was a nightmare.
But it was self-inflicted to a degree,
because I was such an intellectual purist on the subject of breast
feeding that I WOULD NOT supplement with a bottle to top her off and
give us time for my breasts to fill well before she was hungry again. I
also violated the cardinal rule for a breast-feeding mother -- I didn't
take in enough water. More experienced women told me later that nursing
moms should push fluids until they practically slosh when they walk,
and they should never, ever feel thirsty, because by the time thirst
kicks in, you're already dehydrated. I'd read that in all my piles of
books, of course, but it still seemed like a minor point, and I was so
tired and distracted and crazy that I more or less forgot it.
I
go into this amount of sad new motherhood detail not to bore or disgust
you but to make a point. The baby's care and my anxieties and
inadequacies became the totality of my existence in those early weeks.
My husband was as helpful as I allowed him to be, but for me he became
almost beside the point. I saw him as a distraction, something else I
had to deal with in the midst of my exhaustion. I had to be strong and
normal and competent in front of him, because he would become worried
and -- I feared -- cranky if I wasn't. The last thing in the world I
wanted was a grumpy husband on top of everything else.
So I
got into my Superwoman mode again, trying to do everything myself and
resenting the fact that I "had" to. Many women become grizzly bears at
this stage in their lives, crazily, jealously protective of their
"cubs" at the expense of everything else, including their husbands'
needs. I think part of my reason for being so adamant about not
supplementing my breast milk with formula was because letting her
father feed her was a privilege I didn't want to relinquish. I was
truly indispensible and I liked that feeling, even as I also resented
it.
Women's emotional circle naturally draws inward into a
preoccupation with their infants. Objectively speaking, this extreme
preoccupation/protectiveness isn't really necessary to the infant's
survival in this day and age, but in earlier human history it probably
was. The human family has benefitted enormously from women's "natural"
dismissal of husbands from their consciousness after the birth of a
baby, and girl babies that survived because of this recentering of
attention grew up to be adult women with the same trait. But for some
women this initial bearish irritability and child-centeredness
continues far beyond the infancy stage, and that's when things tend to
get really sticky between marital partners.
Even the
initial phase of this preoccupied state of being can be very
problematic for couples today. Early motherhood is often distillation
of virtually ALL the sex-freezing problems we've discussed so far:
Disgust, Discomfort, "Distraction," Insecurity,
Misunderstanding, Anger, and Boredom, with additional challenges
from major emotional and physical ass-kickers like vaginal injury
(let's face it, birth may be "natural" but it also routinely tears and
bruises), hormonal storms, and crushing fatigue. For me fatigue
combined with personal pride was a particularly terrible combination.
August 29, 2003
To tell you the truth, I don't know what obstetricians are
recommmending today in terms of when new mothers can resume
intercourse. For all I know it's three weeks or eight, but when I had
my daughter, it was "No intercourse for six weeks."
Some of the
motherhood books I read were all chirpy, though, about how we
sleepless, anxious, bruised new moms might like to indulge our hovering
husbands with "other kinds" of sex in the meantime. Yaright.
Not
to beat a dead horse here -- and not pretending that I was necessarily
RIGHT to feel this way -- but my body and mind were already in too much
of an uproar for me to add any other female "duties" to my list of
Supermommy chores. It was all I could do to maintain a "competent and
coping" face so I wouldn't upset my husband too much. He may have felt
negelected, I don't know (and I've never asked), but at the time, for
me, the male adult living with me was just background noise to my
frantic concern with the baby. The only way I could reassure him was
with my outward display of cool and collected motherhood. I don't know
whether it was hormones or female nature or what, but THE BABY was
I.T., It for me at that point. I not only couldn't do anything more, I
almost couldn't THINK of anything else.
At five weeks my
daughter started to have unexplained rectal bleeding, and she went into
the hospital. It ended up stopping on its own, but at one point I had
to go on a no-animal-protein-except-for-fish diet because there was a
possibility that her intestines were reacting badly to some
animal-protein antigen coming through in my milk. She had a certain
kind of Xray test in which I had to hold her tiny feet down while she
screamed blue-white murder. I slept at the hospital on a cot for three
days, entertaining a parade of curious military doctors whose role in
the hierarchy of her care was opaque even to me, the daughter of an RN.
We
finally got home from the hospital (the bleeding stopped, the mystery
of what had caused it remained) a couple of days before she was six
weeks old.
Frankly, I was dreading the sex I would "have" to
give to my husband the minute the six weeks were up. Not just because I
was concerned that it might hurt, but because my mind was so completely
turned away from that part of my existence. I knew intellectually --
and I'd read it in my books, too! -- that it was necessary to reconnect
with that other adult human in my household, and that if my husband was
deprived of my body for too long he'd start to lose it, and we'd all be
worse off than before. But I couldn't feel sexual. At all.
Yet
I did my duty and it did sting a little bit, along the line of my
episiotomy scar, but it was otherwise okay. I breathed a sigh of relief
afterward.
But of course it was a continuing duty. I couldn't
just do it that one brave time and have it over with. I knew I was
supposed to pick up the pace as time went on, enjoy it more and have it
more often. There were EXPECTATIONS of good motherhood and good
wifehood that I had to meet.
It was the frigidity thing all over
again. I didn't see sex as an enjoyable interlude or something to look
forward to, but as just another one of the long line of demands that
were being made on my body. The baby pulled on my breasts nine times a
day, I couldn't sleep, I had my routine household work to do, I had to
tend to the baby's needs from dawn to dawn, and now I had to "perform"
in bed with my husband, too.
A lot of people, discussing the
issue of sex after a baby, have made a lot of the idea that many women
have a subconscious hangup that tells them that "Mothers" are not
supposed to be sexy. I don't think that was my problem. (That may be
denial talking, since if it's supposed to be a subsconscious hangup, I
wouldn't consciously recognize it, right?) But for me I think it was
more that feeling of being overwhelmed by the demands of others (even
though, in truth, many were demands I was actually imposing on myself)
and my radical emotional, mental and physical preoccupation with the
baby (something that the bleeding incident had made much worse).
I've
heard other women say this, too: Something about having a baby --
whether it's hormones or whatever -- made me a taut, singing wire of
baby empathy, to the extent that even news stories about infants or
children being hurt caused me to react much more emotionally and
viscerally than they ever had before. Again, this is probably a
paleological survival trick Nature plays on new mothers, and luckily it
wears off somewhat, because hysterical weeping about the inhumanity of
total strangers who beat their children is not a useful reaction in the long run.
September 4, 2003
Mother's Milk
My most important "sex advice" for you as a new father is: don't let
your wife butt you out of your legitimate role. Her concentration is
naturally going to narrow and be trained almost exclusively on the
baby, and her "mother bear" irritability may end up making you
feel left out, insulted or unimportant. But your participation and
responsiveness to your family's needs are absolutely crucial at this
point. This is primo "Do The Right Thing" territory. Embrace the roster
of your new responsibilities wholeheartedly and you'll be glad in the
end. Whine that the universe is no longer babying YOU, and you'll blow
it.
Your responsibilities to your wife at this point are to help her sleep,
help her eat, help her nurse, and help her relax. If you help your wife
you'll be helping your baby. Sure, the baby will need some Daddy
snuggling, etc., but the person who really, really needs you now --
more than she can know or express -- is your wife.
If you can stand it, read one of your wife's "nursing advice" books. I
know that many men are somewhat freaked out or even secretly disgusted
by this particular life function (some women are, too). If you have
these hesitations, your wife is going to sense them, and although
there's little you can do about these feelings directly, sometimes
getting more intellectually familiar with the whole weird process can
moderate that "gut" reaction.
One of the psychological hurdles that many women and men experience in
relation to having sex during the nursing period is that sexual
stimulation of the breasts can cause the milk to flow. That can be
messy, of course, but more importantly, some women will panic about the
idea that the baby's milk is being "wasted." You can diminish this
concern by having sex right after she has nursed the baby, when she is
likely to be more or less "empty."
Milk production is a continuous process, however, so there is likely to be some
milk in her breasts within minutes afterward. So you do need to work
out how you and she both feel about the milk issue. Some women don't
have any problem with allowing their husbands to "taste" or even
outright suckle, and others are horrified by the very idea. One good
thing about sexual stimulation of the breast is that it can help to increase production, and might be
particularly useful in those cases where the baby's suckling is
relatively weak.
I go on about this "icky" issue because it is one of those places in
the motherhood process where women are required to reconcile their
sexual and motherhood roles in a very direct and immediate way. Those
women who feel that Mommies aren't (or shouldn't be) sexual creatures
-- and again, their evolutionary nature might be pushing this into
their brains in spite of their intellectual resistance to the idea --
will have some trouble, inwardly or outwardly, with the milk issue.
Similarly, some women have an unshakable, gut level concern about
having sex with the baby in the room. Even when they know this concern
is ridiculous, it still impinges on their consciousness and constitutes
one of those direct, bedroom level Distractions we talked about
earlier. But moving the baby out of the room might not help much,
either, because then there will be the worry that they will not hear
the baby cry for help.
When I first came home with my daughter, whenever I took a shower I
ended up turning it off several times because amidst the sound of the
rushing water I always thought I heard her crying. Something deep
inside seemed to require me
to respond to her, even if I was in the middle of something else. Even
if I didn't or couldn't instantly go to her physically, in my mind I
was still completely there with her whenever she was crying. So if she started crying in the middle of sex...well, you see the problem.
Distraction is also the major problem with later childrearing, and next
time I'll briefly reprise some issues from that discussion, with more
words on how to help your wife keep her eye on the erotic ball.
Then there's the problem some MEN have with fatherhood, per se.
Becoming a parent can damage their sense of themselves as hot dudes
with infinite possibilities, and many of them will subconsciously blame
their wives for the feeling of loss.
September 6, 2003
An apparent digression which leads to new material
In the comments on the Shlain book, Sex,
Time and Power, featured in Monday's post, Rayne gave us
some excellent input (others contributed good thoughts, too, of course,
so go read them).
I particularly responded to this, for reasons you'll
understand in a minute:
Human females'
frequency of ovulation (probably a result of or a
accelerator of rapid mutation and evolution of the species) means that
human females are fertile far more often, for more of any year period;
this substantially increases the odds of fertilization in spite of
obvious cues and in spite of women's alleged control. Much better odds
than playing the lottery, for certain; nature insures it through
unconscious cooperation, in spite of women's conscious attempts at
control.
Do I believe in the notion of a woman's "unconscious cooperation" with
nature outside of our "alleged control"? Yeah, howdy. The reason why is
contained in the story of how I became a mother for the second
time.
We were using a diaphragm at that point, hormonal contraception being
out while I was breastfeeding my daughter and me being lazy about
starting it up again in the 6 or 7 months since I'd
stopped nursing her. One morning we got out of bed to discover my
diaphragm sitting on the dresser with a semi-crystalized puddle of
spermicide in the flattened bottom of its little bowl. I'd gotten it
all ready to put in, and then, apparently, set it on the dresser doily,
got into bed, and....
Do I need to mention that this little lapse on my part happened at
exactly the most fertile point in my menstrual cycle?
Okay, it's true that I'm the absent-minded type, and I'm sometimes
ridiculously scatterbrained when it comes to the details of everyday
living, but this was just too perfect in terms of timing
for me to see it as anything other than nature insisting on its way
despite my conscious wishes. I will swear from here to eternity that I
didn't want
another child at that point. My
daughter was only 15 months old at that time, and I could see that she
would need my undivided attention for a long time to come. She'd barely
gotten to the point that she could walk reliably and was starting to
talk. And yet, somehow, I still forgot to put in that damn diaphragm.
I should also mention here that recent research has revealed that many
women ovulate more than once a month. That's probably the major reason
why women who rely on the "rhythm" method end up pregnant. Other
studies have noted that sperm can remain alive in a woman's
reproductive tract for up to a week. No matter how regular you are,
there really isn't any "safe" time to have sex without
contraceptives.
And that's one of the major problems many women have with sex: they are
afraid they'll get pregnant, and/or their chosen contraceptive method
is anti-spontaneous and a pain in the ass.
September 15, 2003
Getting Back on the Sexual El Train
The fear of a new pregnancy is a particularly upfront and personal one
for new mothers, especially if they've had a rough delivery and/or a
traumatic early motherhood. But even women who've never had a baby, or
who might be expected to have "forgotten" the immediate experience of
delivery can fear pregnancy, and sometimes that fear is deeper than
they themselves even realize.
So just as contraception becomes almost more important than ever, it
also becomes more aggravating to think about and use. At a time when the
pill is out of the question for a nursing mother and sex is almost
always too rushed ("Quick, the baby's asleep, maybe we can...oh, shit,
he's awake again..."), a woman's ability to recover her interest in
romance and sexual pleasure is constrained by having to use mechanical
methods of birth control (condoms, diaphragms, sponges), which
interfere with relaxation and spontaneity.
It almost makes you wonder how women ever get back on the sexual track
after a baby, doesn't it? It's a tribute to the strength of natural
libido that most women do, one way or another. Eventually.
Her vagina heals, the baby becomes (but, yes, sometimes painfully
slowly) less demanding, she gets more sleep and doesn't have that
"overload" of constant physical contact with another human body, you
have time to become re-acquainted with each other, and the sexual
instinct rises again.
But there are a lot of things that can interfere with this more-or-less
natural progression, and as I noted earlier, nature seems to have set
women up in such a way that their sexual interest is much more easily
revived by NEW erotic possibilities after one of these periods of
quiescence than by a "routine" partner. It's probably evolution's
way of creating the widest possible variety of DNA combinations with
the best possible chance of reproducing themselves: give men the drive
to scatter their seed widely, and give women the drive to seek a
"better" partner for each new child ("better" being defined differently
depending on the challenges of any given environment).
So, contrary to popular belief, both men and women seek sexual variety,
excitement, romance, or "sparks," but in women that natural quest comes
with a twist: her drive goes underground in the post-partum period, and
if some kind of erotic encouragement or, ahem, new possibility isn't
available to her when that natural burrowing should end, her sex drive
can stay down there indefinitely. Women are very much "use it or lose
it" creatures when it comes to sex, while men (until they grow older,
at least) tend to have libidos with pilot lights that never go out.
I'll talk next time about some ways you can encourage your wife to come up for air at the end of her new motherhood tunnel.
September 16, 2003
The Surfacing Phase
As I mentioned earlier, your most important role in the early
parenthood period is to be a guardian of your wife's well-being so that
she can take good care of your child, and one of the most important
aspects of this guardianship is, paradoxically, to help her maintain
her sense of herself as a woman separate from that child.
Now, in order to do this job right you'll have to have to cultivate a
sense of timing. In the first 6 to 8 weeks you may have to let her
submerge herself in the baby and neglect you and herself in a way that
you may think is Too Much, because interference with that natural
post-partum "underwater" process can add stress and conflict to an
already crazy period of your life. Be strong. Be a hero of unheard-of
patience and forbearance. Go with her flow for the first month and a
half or so. Let her have her way when it comes to baby care decisions
and obsessional behaviors and preoccupations. Then, gently and
gradually, begin to encourage her to come back to the surface.
There are two things you must try to arrange at about the 4-6 week
mark: time for you two to be a couple away from the baby and time for
her to be ALONE with herself.
I can almost guarantee that she will resist both of these attempts at
first (and maybe even at second, third and fourth). She will hesitate
to leave the baby with a babysitter. She may even hesitate to leave the
baby alone with you. She will make excuses not to go and when she does she will worry
and fret the whole time you are gone (at least on the inside). You
may even conclude that it wasn't worth it because the baby was still
essentially "there" the whole time anyway, but it was a first necessary
step. Go out to dinner. You can talk about the baby if she insists, at
least the first time, but try to turn the conversation to other things
on subsequent afternoons or evenings out. The plan is to gradually,
gently, softly draw her attention away from the cares of motherhood to
the joys of couplehood. Keep the tractor beam of your dazzling
masculine charm tugging upon her bow. Prow. Erm.....you know what I mean.
You also have to encourage her to go out of the house alone.
To the library. To get a pedicure. To window shop. To rant on a soap
box at Marble Arch. Anything. It's not enough to just get her to take
time for herself in the house within sight and sound of the baby.
Physical separation of a couple hours' duration is absolutely
necessary. These moments when a woman can re-experience herself in her
alternate roles (as wife and as her individual self) should occur at
LEAST once a week, but ideally more often.
I'll get a lot of flack for this, I think, but I'm going to say it
anyway: I'm against the current fad for keeping a baby in a "Family
Bed" at night with its mother and father until it is a toddler. Not
only does this practice encourage children to remain dependent
"infants" too long emotionally and makes for a more difficult
separation transition at a more aware age, it discourages mothers from
resuming their other life roles as wives and independent individuals. I
also have a pet theory about the quality of sleep being a prime
determinate of quality of life, and a baby in the bed can interfere
with sleep in a number of subtle ways, even if the adults involved
think they have "gotten used" to it.
Let the brickbats begin.
-----------------------------------------------
ADDENDUM: An intervening post on The Politics of Parenthood
Since I've been talking about new motherhood here I've been more
attuned to birth/early days stories on some of the other blogs I read, and
today Jeanne of Body and Soul has a particularly good one. The genesis
of it was the generalized bitchfest which resulted from her post on Clinton the day before. To
complement the complaints, Jeanne decided to write something positive
about the man. But, "rather than list accomplishments," she wrote, "I
prefer to just tell a story."
My daughter was born in 1995. She was a C-section. She came out late
one Saturday night, and, insurance being what it is, we were both home
early the following Monday morning. When I was sent home I was still
unable to turn over in bed without help, let alone walk. Within a day
or so, I had a temperature of 105, and a serious infection. Not long
after, I had a husband who was supposed to go back to work, having used
up his miserly few personal leave days. We have no family in
California. I was going to be left alone, unable to get up without
falling over, with a raging fever (and, by this time, a catheter) to
take care of a newborn baby.
And then a friend reminded my husband about the Family Leave Act, which
Clinton had signed two years earlier, requiring employers to give
workers up to 12 weeks a year of unpaid time off to care for a family
member (or, in our case, two family members). I don't know anybody who
could afford to lose 12 weeks of their salary, but my husband took off
a week, which he would not have been entitled to without Bill Clinton,
and which meant that my daughter was taken care of, by her father, for
the first weeks of her life, and not left to cry in her crib because
her mother would not have been able to pick her up without dropping
her, even if she'd been able to get across the room to the crib.
In case anyone gets the opportunity to break it to George Bush, that is what family values are all about.
If you think it's nuts that the hospital was throwing a surgical
patient with a newborn out on her own in less than 36 hours, I can only
agree. This ridiculousness was part of the reason for another piece of legislation
Bill Clinton signed in 1996 requiring insurers to pay for hospital
stays of at least 48 hours following normal childbirth and 96 hours
following a Caesarian -- unless a mom herself wants to go home sooner.
If this legislation had been in effect for Jeanne, her rising
infection would probably have been caught before she went home, and because of
the extra days of hospital care her husband's ordinary leave might have
been enough to get them through afterward. Everybody might
have been happy about that -- the husband's employer as well as the Jeannes -- because
even though a firm doesn't have to pay an employee who is on Family
Leave, they still have to compensate somehow for the employee's lost work.
More than a few on the right screamed bloody murder about the 48 hour rule,
calling it, for example, "48 hour incarceration," as if it somehow interfered with
the rights of new mothers to get out of that "jail" called a hospital.
It didn't. It doesn't begin to address the problem of what happens
after 48 or 96 hours, of course, when what is really needed is some trained,
supportive, practical in-home assistance. But it can prevent the worst
of the "kick'em" outrages that were occurring in that era, outrages
which in aggregate were actually more expensive -- to families, to
employers AND to insurers, than the funding of professional at-home
assistance might be. As Jeanne said,
The catch, of course, is that losing a week's salary, for us, meant we
had to cut back a bit, but we weren't going to starve. There are large
numbers of people in this country who need the same kind of help who
can't afford to take [family leave].
The kind of hands-on, in-home help new mothers need used to be provided by members of the new baby's extended
family, but in today's atomized, mobile, working-women society, many of
us no longer can count on that resource. So new fathers too often have
to leave their employers -- and their co-workers! -- in the lurch, and the new family has to take a
budgetary hit just when they can least afford it. We should be
doing some heavy thinking about that, don't you think?
(As a side note, I
contributed my theory on the genesis of the Juanita Broaddrick rape
accusation in Ampersand's Alas, a Blog, which Jeanne references in the
Clinton post.)
<
BASIC BLOG:
Introduction | Disgust | Discomfort | Distraction | Insecurity | Anger | Fat Wars | Misunderstanding | Boredom | Infidelity | Technique | Motherhood | Aging and Depression | Bad Company | Childhood Abuse and Sexual Fears | Counseling | When to Split | Being the Hero of Your Own Life
OTHER STORIES:
Why Does She Masturbate? | Lying and Power | Do Women Prefer Bad Boys? | Fiona's Story | How A Nice Guy Becomes A Dickhead | Ten Ways To Be A Lover | How It All Goes Wrong | Medicalizing Desire | Paul's Dilemma | Who Am I? | Should I Ask Or Just Go For It?
|