Saturday, September 28, 2013

Happy family

Welcome back to PhPhPhPh (or whatever the family photo thing was called). Sorry I haven't been doing a ton with this (or with anything else Proclamation related, come to think of it. I had ideas at the beginning of the month but never wrote them down, and now they sound silly/too deep for me to tackle right now). Plus this round of teething has been especially brutal this past week (especially since we had colds just the week before).

But enough excuses! Here is a picture of us looking our best back in 2006!


Observations/Trivia:

  • We all had different interpretations of what it meant to frown.
  • For earlier family pictures, all we could ever get Spencer to do was frown, if he showed his face at all. By this point he was a bit more cooperative, but I still think this was the easiest picture we took.
  • Although it doesn't show up in this picture, Jennie is actually the only one not in cream-colored clothes. The idea was that some of us would be wearing brown and some would wear cream, but actually only Jennie showed up in the brown. So with her blond hair and brown shirt, she stood out in other pictures we took that day. If we were mean siblings, we could have made a compelling case that she was adopted based on these pictures.
  • Since this picture isn't funny enough as is, sometimes we would mess around with in Paint and switch each other's faces around. I would show one of these but I imagine all copies have been destroyed (as well they should be to protect your gentle eyes).
Until next time, this has been Phamily Phroclamation Photo Phun!

Monday, September 23, 2013

Science!

Welcome back to Phamily Photo Phroclamation Phiesta! We're going to jump ahead to 2012 now and visit the Rytting boys in Zions. This is a picture of them seeing if spit floats if it's hot enough.


Observations:

. . . well, actually I think this one speaks for itself.

Friday, September 20, 2013

A song about grapes

Once upon a time I fed Joseph mainly grapes for dinner. This is what he had to say about it.


Thursday, September 19, 2013

Vintage

Welcome back to Phamily Phroclamation Photo Phun! Okay, I just made that up, and it looks kind of gross. I'm keeping it though because alliteration.

Also, congrats to Dani for both guessing who the famous person was in last time's photo (David O. McKay -- he's the one on the far right . . . you can see it in his eyes), and who my great-great grandpa was (front row, next to the woman on the left). As your prize, I'm sending you a metaphorical toaster oven!

For the next picture, we're going to hop ahead half a century to the 1950s! Nostalgia was invented because of pictures like this one:

Observations:

  • You know how we try so hard today to get pictures to look vintage? Yeah, this was just normal for them. And real.
  • My grandma reminds me of Heidi from the old Shirley Temple movie. I love it.
  • It looks like Provo's always been an awesome place to celebrate the 4th of July. I mean, the banner says "BEHOLD AMERICA" -- can't get more patriotic than that! (Also, "behold America" sounds like a campaign slogan in Utah County these days.)
I suppose I should have asked this before posting, but what else do you remember about this picture, Grandma?

Thanks to everyone who's been sending me pictures! Keep them coming!

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

To nurture

"Parents have a sacred duty to provide for their physical and spiritual needs. . . . Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children."
-Family Proclamation, 6th and 7th paragraphs

For the past several months, I've been wanting to write about breastfeeding. I know there are lots of great essays and articles about that out there, and I don't really think I'll be saying anything new.

But I want to talk about it nonetheless. And I feel like talking about it to my male friends, particularly those who are single. (I'm assuming some of you still read my blog even though it's turning into a mommy blog.) I sometimes sense a lack of understanding about these issues from men, particularly single men. I think it's primarily due to a lack of knowledge, not of compassion, so I just want to provide another perspective about sensitive issues.

The issue I want to tackle is that of breastfeeding in public. Even when I was pregnant, I didn't really see why women cared so much about it. "They say breastfeeding is natural .  . . well, so is urinating, but that's not appropriate to do in public either!"

However, since I've had a baby, my views have changed dramatically. I understand how difficult it is to breastfeed. It's hard to learn, hard to do every couple of hours, hard to time. It can hurt, can make you wet and sticky, and completely take over your life. So I'm a bit more sympathetic than I used to be towards women who want to nurse in public.

Furthermore, since we became parents, both Kevin and I feel things tug at our heartstrings a lot more whenever they involve children. I've realized that above all, public policy needs to protect those who are most vulnerable, those who cannot advocate for themselves. And who is more vulnerable than a baby? Nobody! Thus, I believe that when we discuss topics such as breastfeeding in public, we need to remember that ultimately we're talking about nourishing babies, and we need to encourage behaviors that give them the best nourishment possible.

And overall, I think people are encouraging these behaviors. But every now and then you hear stories or read opinions that seem, well, misguided. So I want to address those as tactfully as possible. Without further ado, here are my responses to things people might have against breastfeeding in public.

1. "Go somewhere private to do it!" So, I can understand this one. Kind of goes along with my "Breastfeeding is natural but so is urinating." The thing is, here in America, we have bathrooms everywhere! There's no reason for someone to go in public because there are places specifically designated for it! Breastfeeding though . . . that's another matter. If there's a mother's room, I try to go there, as do most moms (though that's not a perfect solution, such as if you actually want to hear the talks at church). But most places don't have mother's rooms. Where we get led instead is into bathrooms. Which are gross a lot of the time. And so I used to sit on the gross floor because I didn't want to take a stall which someone might need. Then when I decided I didn't care about that I would use a stall and sit on the seats (no lid usually) and hold my breath.

But what happened? Someone would flush the toilet and my baby would bounce off my breast and look around, too distracted to start nursing again for several seconds. And meanwhile I would be squirting milk everywhere and getting soaked and soaking my baby, just because the toilet flushed two stalls over.

So, no, the bathroom really isn't the best solution.

2. "If you need to feed your baby in public, formula is an option." And it's true. It's expensive and non-ideal in terms of nutrition, but it is certainly an option. But why encourage it? Why not make the world a friendlier place for breastfeeding instead of insisting on formula just to spare your eyes? (I could go on and on about how much better breastmilk is, but I'm assuming you've already heard about it.)

3. "Well, you could always pump beforehand. That way your baby still gets the breastmilk." That's true. Let's talk about how pumping was for me with a regular hand pump. First, you must clean all the equipment. Then, you must sanitize it in the microwave for 4 minutes and let it sit there for another 3 minutes to cool off (though it needed to cool off more). Then you have to put the pump together, which took at least one minute. Then you have to pump, which can take 3 times as long as just regular nursing. Then you take it with you where it must be used within 4 hours unless it's refrigerated. Then when it comes time for your baby to get hungry, you get to feed the baby. Again, this takes much longer than regular nursing (at least for me) because the milk comes much more slowly out of the bottle than the breast. So you have to sit there and hold the baby. And plenty of babies don't even like bottles that much, so it's hard to even get them to take it.

Is it all doable? Absolutely. Is it a pain in the neck? A lot of the time, yes. While pumping is a viable option, I hope I've articulated that it can take a lot of advance planning which seems like overkill if your baby just needs a drink while you're out and about. Again, why not make things easier on the mom and just let her nurse her baby?

4. "Use a cover!" Ummm, no. Babies don't like those and usually manage to twist them off anyway. Plus they are very conspicuous.

5. "Just wait to do it til you're home!" Babies have tiny tiny tummies. They digest breastmilk very quickly. They don't have years of fat stores that can hold them over. You would cry like they do if you were as close to starving as they are. So I don't really consider this an option at all.

By now you might thinking, "Wow, why doesn't she just deal with a world which is not always conducive to breastfeeding? I bet her mom and grandma dealt with it." And they did. And I could. But why make things harder than they need to be for something that is so emotional for moms and so important for babies?

But still . . . I get it. I get that you really don't want to be exposed to women's breasts. You want to keep your thoughts clean and pure. I get it. I really do. I remember the first time I happened to see women nursing without even trying to cover up. It was a little shocking, and I was there in the mother's room with them doing the exact same thing. I can imagine that it could be quite unnerving for a man to see.

But breastfeeding in public is not about you. Nor is it about the moms, who usually are very private individuals who would rather not be exposing themselves on the park bench or in the airplane (and who are trying their best to be discreet).

Rather, it's about giving the best we can to the next generation.  It's about allowing women to nurture the best they can, even when it's inconvenient. Ultimately, it's about taking care of God's most vulnerable, innocent children.

Monday, September 16, 2013

Now this is a portrait

Hello everyone! As part of my Family Proclamation series I thought it would be fun to share some family pictures! (Family proclamation . . . family pictures . . . both have the word "family" in it . . . not that much of a stretch, right? If you're not related you might find this boring. But hey, you can still send me pictures of your family if you want to feel more invested.)

So, first up, here are some of the siblings of the McKay family, some time after the invention of the camera (my guess is 1900):


What a respectable looking bunch. Here are some observations for which I hope they won't haunt me:

  • Check out the girls' dresses! They look like black leather jackets with puffed sleeves! If motorcycles had been invented, they probably would have hopped on them right after they took the picture.
  • I guess back then it was the style for men to flip their hair up a bit. The old-fashioned equivalent of wings, I suppose.
  • Tuxes haven't changed that much in a century.
  • Even with stony faces, some people are still more photogenic than others. (Pretty sure my great-great grandpa is the best-looking one. :D)
  • I know we have plenty of problems these days, but at least they don't include wearing ruffly turtlenecks.
  • Looking at the family history for this family, one of the siblings (not pictured here I don't think) had the middle name of "Favorite." I guess inferiority complexes were not invented back then because otherwise I'm sure all the other siblings would have had one.
So there you have it. Oh, and here's a puzzle for you -- who's the moderately famous person in this photo? (He's famous to Mormons, but not many other people.) Here's a hint: His hairstyle didn't change that much over his lifetime. If you are related to me, wait to answer the question until other people get the chance to guess.

Tune in next time to find out the answer and to see more awesome photos!

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Barbie necks

It seems that we hear a lot these days about the negative subliminal messages which Disney princesses and Barbies can send. Since many are carbon copies of each other in terms of appearance and size, it can convince girls that they have to look a certain way. In many ways, I agree with these naysayers.

But you know . . . I don't really think I ever felt inferior because I didn't look like Barbies. It seems like I always knew that Barbies looked like Barbies, and people looked like people, and there was nothing wrong with not looking like a Barbie.

I wonder how I came to this conclusion. Perhaps it was that I was surrounded by people who didn't look like Barbies, and I still wanted to be like them. Perhaps it was that I was taught that personality matters more than appearances. Perhaps it was that it looked really uncomfortable to have Barbie's figure.

Or maybe it's that when it came down to it, our Barbies weren't that attractive. It always seems that someone had popped a Barbie's head off at our house. This meant that there were either headless Barbies to play with, or that the head would have to be squished on so far that the neck all but disappeared. No way that these Barbies could create an inferiority complex.

Yeah, that was probably why.