Up there, look twice. That’s a chimpanzee skeleton. And yesterday, I took a trip to the Darwin exhibit at the San Diego Natural History Museum where this little chap was on display. In Darwin’s time, the reigning philosophy was that humans were different from animals. So it goes that humans are created in God’s image.

Later at home, I watched Stephen Fry’s discussion with Craig Ferguson and Fry made the astute observation that if an alien were to watch our behaviour, they would perhaps consider torture, murder and violence to be the worst parts of our nature and our capacity to love and to make love (and I would add, our capacity to nurture our young) would be the most wonderful things. Yet the word ‘fuck’ is considered horrific and shocking, while polite society can talk about torture and murder cheerfully in public (Oh, the traffic was MURDER tonight, darling!) How have we got here, that a description of an act which celebrates our humanity, our aliveness and our ability to reproduce is so obscene?

Really, we simply haven’t moved on from that time Darwin lived in, when humans denied their animalness. To be civilised was to live with rituals and trappings and unnatural appearances. And isn’t this how we still live? In a culture which sees body hair as disgusting? Which sees silicon enhanced breasts as perfect and functional breasts as ‘icky’?

Of course some of these things are mere aesthetics and fairly harmless. And some of our rituals serve very valid purposes whether they be to reduce the spread of disease or to keep our chosen sexual partner from rivals.

But there are those which are actively harmful and serve no valid purpose.

No national medical organisation supports routine circumcision for health purposes. Even the American Association of Pediatrics, a deeply conservative organisation doesn’t recommend it. Outside the USA, national health organisations actively argue against the procedure. The Australian College of Paediatrics describes it as ‘a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal functional and protective prepuce [foreskin].’

The British Medical Association “does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view.”

Evidence supporting links to ‘penile cancer’ and HIV reduction is shaky to say the least. Penile cancer is an extremely rare condition which almost invariably affects elderly men. HIV transmission should be prevented with a condom. The difference circumcision makes to either condition is questionable. Compared to the severe risks (including infections, adhesions, penile damage, haemmorhage, sexual dysfunction, psychological trauma) this painful surgical procedure carries and the trauma it causes the newborn, it is fairly clear to see that the cons outweigh the pros. The foreskin is not a loose flap of skin, it is a healthy, functioning tissue.

Circumcision was popularised in the USA with the help of Dr Kellogg.

“A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision…The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind…In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement. ” — Dr. John Harvey Kellogg

It bought into the puritanical belief that masturbation was unhealthy and wrong. Yet the practice continued to the modern day, with dubious explanations about ‘hygiene’ or ‘health.’ As can be seen universally by the policy of national professional bodies, circumcision serves no such purpose. It is a cultural and social ritual. In fact, one of the most common reasons given by parents opting for circumcision is ‘So he looks like his daddy’ thus perpetuating the cycle.

But to revisit Darwin, the ‘hygiene’ argument is intriguing. Is circumcision just another way of marking ourselves as separate from animals?

Birth is animal. Parenting is animal. The bond with a new baby is instinctive, fuelled by hormones and chemicals. The protective instinct is overwhelming. How powerful is this social conditioning that it overrides that instinct enough to allow the newborn to be removed from the warmth of his mother and strapped down to a cold table and cut in this way.

My question is this. If we are created in God’s image, surely we arrive in this world perfect. Why taint what God has created with our manmade meddling?

I spent a fabulous couple of hours on Saturday with the ladies from Insight Pink, a unique group for women who feel they are transitioning from the period of their twenties and early thirties.

Read what they have to say about me here. (I was very touched by your kind words, ladies. Thank you.)

It was fascinating to learn from them and their experiences, and how we all deal with this process of ‘growing up’ differently. There seems some expectation that by your mid-thirties you’ve figured it all out and are settled, but some of us seem to bounce off in completely new directions!

As Baz Luhrman said:

“The most interesting people I know didn’t know at 22 what they wanted to do with their lives, some of the most interesting 40 year olds I know still don’t.”

There are no ‘rules’ now. Career, relationships, family, housing, travel, leisure, finance are all part of what we probably have to figure out at some time or another as women, yet there is no clear order to do them in or proportions to arrange them in. There is pressure from family, friends, finance and of course our biological clock and sometimes it seems very hard to do the ‘right’ thing because it always seems like something is being neglected.

Fitting babies into this mix can be very daunting and understandably so. Babies come with a whole other set of pressures and responsibilities.

I’m perhaps a little simplistic. I believe that babies always manage to ‘fit in’ somehow. I also think there is far too much pressure to be a perfect parent, to read all the parenting manuals, to establish routines and discipline early on and to always have your baby looking ‘perfect.’ It becomes about ‘active parenting’ which can quite honestly be stifling and stressful for all concerned.

I think you can do an amazing amount of ‘parenting’ by instinct, without actually worrying about ‘parenting’. Your baby’s needs in the beginning are very simple – lots of love, sleep, milk and interaction. Co-sleep and breastfeed and all you need to buy are nappies/diapers and a few clothes. And a sling is invaluable for going out and about. (My experience of complex ‘travel systems’ is that they’re very expensive and the baby outgrows them quickly. My son was already too big for the pram part of one I looked at in a shop when he was three months old! You really can get by with a sling until the baby is old enough for a simple stroller.)

This type of parenting is called attachment parenting. Demand feeding is a key part of this, so you keep your baby with you in the early weeks so that he (or she) can feed when he needs to. I actually found demand feeding very liberating. There’s no watching the clock, screaming babies or worrying, you just settle for a feed as soon as your baby shows signs of wanting one. You also don’t run into the problem of not being able to go out because it’s naptime – you just take baby with you and let him sleep in the sling.

A big secret of attachment parenting is that keeping your baby close to you releases the hormones which keep your milk supply plentiful and having each other close by and smelling one another is reassuring and good for the mental and physical health of both you and your baby. (There’s a reason nature made babies’ heads smell so yummy!)

Anyway, do take a look at Insight Pink’s blog. They’re a fascinating, smart, articulate group of ladies and true Shinemamas-to-be!

And if you would like me to come and spread a little SHINE by talking to your group or organisation, drop me an email!

The topic of cosleeping hit the headlines last week once again following a new study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ article.)

Reports were mixed, with the BBC news using soundbites from FSID to berate parents for ‘ignoring advice’ not to bedshare. Meanwhile, The Telegraph carried the headline, ‘Sharing a bed with a baby does not increase risk of cot death, research shows’.

The Guardian goes one step further to argue that the ’science’ is being badly misinterpreted and used to demonise parents.

So what is the truth? Well, the BMJ study doesn’t tell us much we don’t already know. Their conclusion is as follows:

Many of the SIDS infants had coslept in a hazardous environment. The major influences on risk, regardless of markers for socioeconomic deprivation, are amenable to change and specific advice needs to be given, particularly on use of alcohol or drugs before cosleeping and cosleeping on a sofa.

The problem we have in finding the truth is that none of the big cosleeping studies have separated out those bedsharing safely with their babies (no drugs or alcohol for parents and a safe space for baby, free from pillows and excess covers) from those who have fallen asleep on a sofa, possibly in a drunken or overtired state.

Consistently, studies have found the vast majority of ‘cosleeping’ deaths have been sofa-sleepers, where the baby has been smothered or suffocated whilst sharing a sofa with a parent. These really aren’t true SIDS or cot death cases as there is a clear cause of death. Similarly, we know that smoking and alcohol consumption in parents are linked to incidents of SIDS.

There is no evidence that planned bedsharing is in any way harmful.

What we DO know however is that the original study which FSID quote repeatedly and which was aimed at finding a link to cosleeping and SIDS was funded in a large part by the JPMA – The Juvenile Product Manufacturers’ Association who described themselves:

JPMA is a national trade organization representing 95% of the prenatal to preschool industry. Today, JPMA represents 250 companies in the United States, Canada, and Mexico who manufacture, import and/or distribute infant products such as cribs, car seats, strollers, bedding, and a wide range of accessories and decorative items.

Hardly an uninterested party. Though none of these studies have actually proven any link to bedsharing and SIDS, the party line is still not to bedshare.

Fortunately, a few voices of reason have spoken up. The National Childbirth Trust (NCT) Chief Executive, Belinda Phipps has said, “The findings sound extremely significant. We are really pleased to see that evidence about the safety of co-sleeping is building, because we know it improves breastfeeding rates. We also know a lot of parents prefer to do it but feel guilty because they are unsure about the risks”. (The Telegraph, 2009)

Similarly, Dr Peter Blair from UNICEF has said, “This study shows that it is not co-sleeping that is unsafe, but the circumstances under which some parents co-sleep that create risks”.

So why is this so important to parents?

Well, we know that half of parents bedshare at least once in the first six months. A quarter of parents bedshare regularly. Many are made to feel guilty about it. This guilt is mired in the belief of FSID that it is better to tell parents never to cosleep at all rather than expect them to understand a few common sense precautions. Yet this sledgehammer approach is dangerous because bedsharing carries considerable, known benefits.

• Bedsharing supports the breastfeeding relationship between mother and infant. Mothers who bedshare are more likely to feed on demand and continue feeding for longer. Proximity of the baby helps the mother produce prolactin which keeps milk supply high.
• Bedsharing is comforting, normal and natural. Most other cultures outside the US and UK bedshare, many with very low incidences of SIDS. The practice was discouraged by the Victorians. Babies aren’t designed to be alone.
• It’s easy! No getting out of bed to fetch and feed the baby.
• It’s safe. Feeding then falling asleep on the sofa isn’t.
• There is evidence bedsharing can help regulate the baby’s breathing, temperature and heart rate as well as reduce stress hormones.
• It may mean a much better night’s sleep for mum and baby. A known factor in decreasing postnatal depression.
• A secure baby with a close maternal attachment is likely to not suffer separation anxiety, so is more likely be a secure, independent, happy child.

Deborah Jackson’s book Three in a Bed was a groundbreaking book on the benefits of bedsharing. It’s a great read for parents wanting to know more on the subject. I am a strong believer in bedsharing and am sharing with #3. #1 and #2 moved on to their own bed cheerfully when they were ready.

There are just a few common sense guidelines:

• Avoid drinking, drugs or cigarettes if you are bedsharing.
• Make a safe space for the baby… no pillows or excess covers, no cracks they can get wedged in.
• Don’t cosleep on the sofa

Is there anything nicer than seeing your baby’s face grinning back at you when you wake up?

I came across the term heuristic play this evening, a phrase coined in the book ‘People Under Three’ by Elinor Goldschmied & Sonia Jackson. Heuristic comes from the Greek word ‘heuriskein’ meaning to discover.

In the book, heuristic play refers to a specific period of time when a group of young children are offered a large basket of objects to explore, experience and play with. It is a social concept which sees several babies or toddlers delving into a big basket to find the hidden treasures within. Ideally, these include a wide range of sensorial items, many of which are everyday objects from around the house.

Of course, this activity taps into some very natural baby and toddler behaviour. Babies love to explore cupboards, delve into boxes and rummage with everything from the pots and pans to the sewing basket. Some of these items are more appropriate than others! What I often notice is how babies seem to gravitate towards the most commonly used artifacts in the house. The tv remote control, their sibling’s favourite doll, the telephone, a favourite make-up item or a wooden spoon. Those items which are fetishised by the household, put in prized places and used on a daily basis. I imagine that in times gone by, the conch shell would have been as attractive to the cave-infant as the telephone is to the 21st century baby!

While I love the social idea of the treasure basket, particularly for older toddlers who are starting to engage in parallel play (playing alongside one another on individual activities), I believe this is also an absorbing and exciting activity for younger babies to explore individually. Practitioners recommend that parents observe quietly, but don’t interfere, and that the number of items for younger babies is fewer, allowing them to take their time exploring each object.

Of course, babies explore with their mouths so treasure objects should be chewable and safe – wooden spoons, pastry brushes, plastic cookie cutters, bunches of keys are all perfect. Ideally, I would suggest there should be plenty of natural objects – not only are they more aesthetically pleasing, they are fascinating to the baby – think of the patterns of wood or marble. They also engage all the senses – the different textures of wood, the faint taste of the sea on a large shell or the smell of a piece of leather.

Practitioners also suggest this activity should be limited to a set amount of discovery time at occasional, supervised periods during the week. This prevents boredom with the objects and keeps the discovery period exciting and fun. Of course, it’s also a lovely time to spend bonding with your baby, observing how he or she learns and explores the world around them, absorbing these miniature representations of their environment, of their world.

Although.. you could just let them bash around with the pots and pans and rummage in the cupboard…

Senses – leather for smell, sponge, shells