bearing blog


bear – ing n 1  the manner in which one comports oneself;  2  the act, power, or time of bringing forth offspring or fruit; 3 a machine part in which another part turns [a journal ~];  pl comprehension of one’s position, environment, or situation;   5  the act of moving while supporting the weight of something [the ~ of the cross].


  • Paternal opt-out.

    DarwinCatholic has some good commentary on a news article I’ve been meaning to mention.

    …in the man’s case, US law recognizes a traditional understanding of what sex is (an act that can naturally be assumed to be fertile) while in the woman’s case sex is merely considered an act which may bring on a transitional condition in which a woman has conceived yet has not yet decided whether or not she wants to actually be pregnant.

    Clearly, being pregnant (and caring for a child) is a far, far greater burden for a woman than for a man, so one can see how (thinking with its heart rather than its head) our country got itself into this position. But it’s still a pretty untenable position to be in.

    Obviously, it would be wrong to deny child support and parentage to children in order to be "fair" to the men who fathered them.  So in that respect, the lawsuit mentioned in the article is reprehensible.  On the other hand,  it highlights the illogical position we find ourselves in.   

    (And it points out that biology isn’t "fair" in the same sense that laws can strive to be "fair."  Must we apply "fairness" to situations that are inherently biologically "unfair"?  That’s a question that’s more general than just this one….)

    Unfortunately, if a court decided that, to be fair, laws must either allow fathers to opt out or cut back on abortion-on-demand, I have a feeling that many groups would choose to lobby for abortion over child support.


  • Dinner conversation, the day after a snowstorm.

    Me:      Was it helpful that I partially shoveled the walk today?

    Mark:  Um, a little bit.  In some of the places you shoveled a few feet to the left of the sidewalk. 

    Me:  Well, I wasn’t doing it for you.  I thought the mailman would appreciate it.

    Mark:  Yeah, he probably did.

    Me:   Sorry that shoveling the top layer of snow away made me too tired to do any housework or cook the dinner except to make the salad.  How is the salad, by the way?

    Oscar (picking at it):  You shouldn’t mix the salad dressing into the salad.   You should leave it in a bowl on the table so I can put more dressing on.

    Me:  I guess I just can’t please anybody today!

    Mark:  Except the mailman.


  • 3 AM linking.

    Sometimes, when you come downstairs for a sandwich at three in the morning and sit down to surf while you eat it, you come across an unusual gem.

    Thanks to a link at Asymmetrical Information, which was interested in the economics of his situation, I have discovered Thomas Mahon.  His blog, English Cut, is surprisingly fun to read.  In brief, Mr. Mahon is a relatively young top-shelf bespoke tailor of Savile Row (though his workshop is based in Cumbria, keeping his overhead low).  He blogs about the suits he’s working on, the trips he takes to meet clients in the US and on the Continent, what "bespoke" means, tips on how to use a thimble and sew a proper button, what’s so special about his particular shop, and how to tell a tailor from a cutter in the bars near Savile Row.   

    From this post about a trip to the US:

    I love meeting and making for all my customers. But there’s always that little extra joy when a customers try on on his first bespoke suit. It could be the successful young executive who’s just realized that bespoke REALLY IS as good as they say (Frankly, if it wasn’t, I couldn’t realistically stay in business). Or sometimes it’s the guy who’s decided that before he dies he’s going to have at least one real suit in his wardrobe. It’s a great moment to witness.

    And this bit, from a post explaining the three methods that tailors might use to create a bespoke pattern:

    ["Rock of Eye"] is the system I specialise in. This is where the second system, the above Drafting Formula is calculated mentally in my head, however I just cut the pattern freehand, using only my tape measure and chalk to guide me. This method is used for the jacket only- to draught trousers without a square and stick would be folly.

    This method does sound slightly vague, because it is. However as Mr. Hallbery told me, on my first encounter in the Anderson & Sheppard cutting room, “Show me a right angle on a man and I’ll let you use that square”.

    It’s a fun blog.  Read some more.


  • Snow day!

    It is really coming down — and sometimes sideways.  There are maybe seven inches of snow on the ground.  Driven snow encrusts the screens on the kitchen windows; we can’t see the birdfeeders only six feet away.  MnDOT has asked Minneapolis residents to curtail unnecessary travel, Mark reported when he called me from his car (me: Why are you calling me while you are driving?!?  him:  I’m only going two miles an hour!) to suggest that I stay home.

    The original plan for the day was busier than usual:

    8:00 get kids up

    9:00 leave for music class

    10:15 drive to Melissa’s, about 20 minutes into the suburbs

    1:30 drive to a different suburb for Oscar’s class at a nature center

    3:30 come home

    Now it looks like we’ll be home all day, unless it clears up by early afternoon and the nature center isn’t closed.  I wonder, should we do schoolwork and housework as we might if it were Tuesday (one of my at-home days), or should I say "Snow day!" and let Oscar sleep in, turn on cartoons, make canned soup and hot chocolate, for lunch, maybe send them out galumphing in the heavy, wet, springtime snow until they come back in soaked to the skin?

    Maybe a little bit of both.  If I can find any mittens, that is.


  • Camera caper.

    This is one of the most bizarre posts and comment threads I have ever seen.

    H/t Number 2 Pencil.



  • Some thoughts on fasting.

    At Square Zero, a newish blog by Eric Scheidler.  Since he switched rites fairly recently from Roman to Byzantine (Ruthenian, IIRC), he has a take from a different perspective. 

    For example, Catholics in the Eastern rites fast from dairy products for the whole of Lent, which leads to (a) something called "Cheesefare Sunday" and (b) gastrointestinal distress.

    Read and enjoy.


  • In which I use “clatter” and “placenta” in the same sentence.

    Mr. and Mrs. Darwin just had a baby at home, and they post a short birth story here.  I can relate to the ending:

    Postscript: I opened the freezer the other day to get something, and there was the placenta, bagged up and large as life. I’d completely forgotten about it. We don’t plan to barbeque it, just so you know.

    We had each of our placentas in the freezer for a while. Occasionally, because of the many casseroles stuffed in there to nourish us through the newborn period, opening the door of the freezer would cause a placenta to clatter to the floor in its ziploc bag.

    Eventually each one was transported to Ohio where we buried it under a fruit tree in Mark’s parents’ orchard.  Each boy likes to visit "his" tree when we go to see Grandma and Grandpa.


  • Getting out of the business.

    Bettnet has a series of posts up (here’s the first) about the recent decision by Catholic Charities of Boston to get out of the adoption business rather than comply with a state antidiscrimination law that would force them to place children with same-sex couples.

    Catholic hospitals, Catholic pharmacists, Catholic medical professionals, Catholic lawyers, Catholic organizations and employees of all sorts, take note:  Sometimes the law requires you to do something contrary to your principles, something that is wrong, or else to "get out of the business."  Sometimes your job requires you to do something that is wrong, or else to be fired.

    The only right thing to do, when all appeals are exhausted, is to get out of the business, to resign, to refuse to take the case, perhaps to be fired.

    It isn’t pretty, it isn’t fun, but it’s better than doing wrong.  We are not allowed to do evil so that good can come of it, not ever. 

    Invariably, when someone refuses to bring about a good by doing wrong, critics bewail the loss of the good that might have been, and blame the one who refrains from wrong.  It’s hard criticism.  Stand firm.

    If you do, another door to do good by doing good might open: 

    Within an hour of the announcement, Gov. Mitt Romney said he planned to file a bill that would allow religious organizations to seek an exemption from the state’s anti-discrimination laws to provide adoption services.

    Or not.  But stand firm anyway.

    (Wording alert:  This AP article appearing in the Star Tribune says that CC of Boston "would stop providing adoption services because of a state law allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children."  Question:  Is it because of a state law "allowing" adoption by gays and lesbians, or rather, because of a state law "forbidding" adoption agencies to restrict themselves to placing children with married heterosexual couples?  There is a difference, and if it’s the latter, then the article is misleading.   I haven’t been able to find the text of the law.)


  • Amy Welborn in Rome.

    This week Amy Welborn is trying to give a flavor of her recent visit to Rome with her husband and kids.  It’s all good — go to her blog and read some of the entries.  They’re not just a travelogue, but commentary on pilgrimage, and also some great posts on traveling with a teen, a toddler, and a baby. 

    Here’s a link to one about the Coliseum, and another to one about the Capuchin Crypt, which reminds me how much I love all that is, well, corporeal about Catholicism.


  • Tuffin puffin.

    It was gorgeously springy outside yesterday, so I took the kids to the little municipal zoo for the afternoon.  A fine day to go to the zoo:  the big male lion paced from end to end of his enclosure, stopping now and then to look majestically and possibly hungrily at the squealing children on the other side of the glass as mothers shuddered and shutters clicked.  The polar bear sunned himself beside his pool, no matter how much the children tried to coax him to dive into the water.  The orangutan galloped about with a plastic kiddie pool upended on his back, like a big hairy turtle.

    (I forgot my camera.)

    Milo, as you know, loves birds.  Sadly, the flamingoes (Mingoes, they go, in the WATER!!!!) had not been put out for the spring yet, so we made sure to visit the Aquatic Animals building to view the penguins and puffins.

    I held Milo up so he could be just on the other side of the glass from one of the tufted puffins (link to bird guide) .  "What’s this bird called?" he wanted to know.  Tufted puffin, I said, reading the sign, and he frowned and repeated, "Tuffin puffin."  Awww!  "Tufted puffin," I said, and he said "Tuffin puffin!" with a big smile.  I put him down and we went off to see the polar bear.

    Later that night I wanted to get Milo to say tuffin puffin (awwww!) for his dad, so I prompted him.  "Tell daddy about the bird I showed you at the zoo today."

    He spun around with his jaw dropped and his feet planted wide apart and proclaimed, "Bird!  Puffin!  He goed in the water!"

    "Tell him what kind of puffin."

    Big smile, and a shout:  "TITMOUSE PUFFIN!"

    (He must have been thinking of this one.)


  • Situational weaning: two examples that are not “self-weaning” (part 2 of 2).

    I promised in the last post about so-called "self-weaning" that I’d describe how I’ve twice exploited a child’s natural, probably temporary, situation-specific decrease in interest in nursing in order to practice situational weaning.    I’m doing so here, in order to give an example of something that might seem to qualify as "self-weaning," but really does not.

    (By situational here I mean restricted to a particular context:  in neither case was I hoping to completely wean my child, but only to stop most of the nursing in a certain circumstance.  In fact, I never even thought of the situational weaning as part of a process of weaning the child — it is not the same thing as, for example, cutting out one daily nursing session with the goal of eventually cutting out all of them.)

                                                     —————————

    The first example was weaning from nursing in public.  When my first child was a little bit past two, I began to feel uncomfortable nursing him in most public places, e.g., the grocery store, church, meetings with my graduate advisor.  (N. B.  I don’t have this problem anymore with my second two-year-old.  N. B. B. I also don’t have a graduate advisor.)   I began to think about restricting nursing to home, friends’ homes, and places where we could feel reasonably private. 

    A few months after his birthday, as many toddlers are wont to do, he became more and more interested in walking instead of being carried in the sling.  And I started to get used to having him down instead of up.  I started putting him to ride in the grocery cart instead of the sling, too.  One of the results of this is that he wasn’t as proximate to the breast, so he asked to nurse less; and he was looking at many interesting things that had never been quite near enough before, so he became very easy to distract.   

    He still did ask to nurse from time to time, though.  Without even being really conscious of what I was doing, I learned that he would actually accept being put off momentarily with "Not right now" or "Wait till we get back to the car" or "We’ll have milk when we get home" or "Here, look at this interesting object instead."  And I didn’t really want to nurse him in the grocery store anymore.  So I did try to put him off, except, say, when he was wailing inconsolably from bonking his head on something.  And it wasn’t too long before we never nursed in public anymore.

    I think that if I had continued to offer milk in those places, eventually (when the newness of being out of the sling wore off) he would have returned to public nursing, at least until much later.  So I don’t say that he "self-weaned" in public, even though that weaning was accomplished (1) with few tears and (2) in response to a developmental leap that he made.

                                           ———————————-

    The second example is just completing right now:  night-weaning of my 28-month-old, that is, stopping nursing after bedtime and before morning awakening.  (Don’t confuse this with cutting out the nursing session that in many families precedes tucking baby into a cot at bedtime.   To night-wean or not is primarily a question for co-sleeping families.)

    We forcibly night-weaned our first child at about this age, when I felt sleep-deprived because I was pregnant with my second and trying to finish my thesis.  Happily, he went along with it fairly easily, accepting midnight banana smoothies from his bleary-eyed daddy, and in about two or three weeks he was sleeping through pretty well — we had planned to go much more slowly than that, but were encouraged by his not-too-traumatic response.    And I admit that when the baby came, I was very glad not to be tandem nursing at night.

    So when I became pregnant, a few months ago, with our third baby, I began wondering whether or not I should night-wean the second, who had just turned two.  He was six months younger than my first had been at the conception of the next sibling, and a bit more attached to milk than the first.  And I was sleeping pretty well this time around.   But I had been very glad to have the toddler night-weaned by the time the baby came — I felt comfortable with that.  I went back and forth for a while and finally decided that I wouldn’t forcibly night-wean him, at least not unless I started feeling in the moment that I needed to (rather than worrying that I might later wish he was night-weaned). 

    And then one morning not too long ago, I woke up and realized that he’d slept all the way through, without rooting to nurse, for the first time ever.  A week or so later, it happened again.  And then it happened again.   Most nights he did nurse, but he was sporadically sleeping through.  One evening he fell asleep on the other side of his dad during the bedtime story; we left him there, between dad and big brother, and he slept peacefully all night.  The next night, I nursed him well before bed, and we encouraged him to go to sleep between dad and big brother.   Amazingly, he did —  he didn’t need to nurse to go to sleep. 

    After that, I nursed him once before bed, and then he went to sleep without nursing to sleep.   He would still ask to nurse occasionally in the middle of the night, and Mark would switch places with him, putting him next to me, so that I could nurse him.  But after a while that stopped.  We moved him back next to me (because big brother missed sleeping next to his dad) and he still slept through.

    Once, after a long string of nights with no waking, he woke and asked for milk, and Mark didn’t wake me; he took him downstairs for a glass of cow’s milk and then took him back to bed.  I think that was the last time he woke at night, maybe a week ago.  I’m pretty sure he will be fully night-weaned in a few weeks.

                        ——————————————– 

    If you met me on the street and asked me about when my kids weaned in certain circumstances, if I perceived that you didn’t want to hear many details or if I had little time, I might just say: "Oscar stopped nursing in public at age two.  Milo started sleeping through the night at 28 months."  And you might think I was describing a true self-weaning.  You might imagine that Milo spontaneously stopped nursing at night, or that Oscar on his own lost all interest in nursing in public.

    Or I might equally say, "Well, we weaned Oscar from nursing in public at age two.  We night-weaned Milo at 28 months."  And you might think I was describing a forcible weaning, that I refused a child who was asking to nurse until he stopped asking.  (I know the difference, especially with the night weaning, because I did forcibly night-wean Oscar.)

    What really happened, as you now know, was more complicated than that.  It takes a long time to explain.   Which is one reason why terms like "self-weaned" or "child-lead weaning" should be used carefully — and maybe hardly at all.