I am really quite frustrated by this whole conversation. Having been a first-time mum to a 3 month old just over a year ago I am amazed at the lack of reality reflected in a lot of this 'advice'. I'm not too sure what happens to the memory of those of you who are claiming that from almost birth you and your children were traipsing around the world doing hard-core research with no challenges or obstacles.
On average (and actually most mums experience this a little later) 12 weeks is the time when the mother and baby are finally in-sync with breastfeeding. This is accompanied by yet another fluctuation in hormones, which can change the mood of the mother quite significantly, cause metabolic shifts and a host of other physical effects. At this time, for myself and a whole host of mums I know, most babies are feeding every 2-4 hrs (some more frequently). Feeds/changes/burping/cuddling takes about an hour (or more), then you play with the baby, settle the baby to sleep, then you get about 30 mins - 1 hr 30 mins (if you're lucky!) to do your own stuff. This regime goes on for 24 HOURS. So most mums are getting about 2-3hr sleeps at a time, and many are getting a lot less. *I'm really not sure how on Earth anyone is supposed to be effective in the field with these demands on their time, emotions and body. *And I'm really surprised and angered that anyone would expect them to be. So, for those of you who are talking about how 'rational' a young mum is when asking about hiking in wet conditions with an infant, you are making a dubious judgement call. Sleep deprivation is a hell of a tough ride. Decision making occurs under the influence of fluctuating hormones (which CANNOT be underestimated), feelings of guilt, pressure from others who are not in your situation, and expectations of yourself, coupled with coming to terms with the fact that your life has changed forever (e.g. it was 6 months before I could take a proper shower!). To me, recounting stories of how you're taking infants in to the field and 'get your work done' (congratulations!), while using cloth nappies, living like nomads, saving the world and creating 'special' children, is just perpetuating the unrealistic notion that mothers are supposed to take motherhood in their stride and continue to live their life as if the child never entered it. In fact, children, and babies especially, change your life and your priorities forever. You are no longer the centre of your life. This is challenging. It is also awesome! But it actually does take quite some time for you to be OK with the change. Where are your stories of things going wrong, of days spent in tears because you couldn't get done what you wanted to get done, or how scared you were when the kids got sick an you had no idea what was wrong or what to do? One of the other key problems I have with the discourse is the idea that 'our ancestors' and 'nomadic people' (our noble savages), somehow raise their kids in a natural utopia - the women just give birth under a tree and carry on harvesting their nuts and berries and tubers sustainably and breastfeed while they walk. Have any of you ever witnessed this in person? I have worked in remote areas of Papua New Guinea since 2004 and have witnessed babies dying from malaria, severe malnutrition in babies and mothers (which is criminal to see) and very high levels of infant and maternal mortality rates. Theirs is an incredibly challenging life. Most of these women would give anything to be able to have a rest, to not have to work in their gardens to provide for their families, and to have the luxury of hospital care. I know this because we have discussed it at length. And for those of you who say that a child needs to be with their mother to the extent that they must be taken out in the field, in these countries there is extensive familial 'child care' which is not frowned upon, and which acknowledges that there are some activities that need to be done solo when possible. I'm not saying that there can never be a balance, that children shouldn't be exposed to challenging and extreme situations. But having been there very recently, I do think that 3 months is too young - both for mum and baby. I think expectations of mothers to take infants into the field (or to work) at such an age is symptomatic of a lack of reality surrounding the importance of our work vs that of family and friends. Is our work really so important that we can't make the space to look after an infant according to its own needs? I do recognise that work is often tied up with identity and in many cases financial needs but in those cases I think that employer support and understanding are even more important. Part time hours, maternity leave and greater flexibility at work (and expectations of employers) all need to be prioritised. We are the only ones who will change the status quo - so why don't we? Why fall into the old-school trap of all-in or all-out? There are many studies showing that productivity decreases when people work longer hours. So why do we insist that shorter working days are a problem? For a bit of spice on this topic (and on mother guilt driving decision-making) have a look at the research of the esteemed French philosopher Elisabeth Badinter: http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?lr=lang_en&q=elisabeth+badinter&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 All the best to all the new mums and dads out there! On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Joel E. (jeep) Pagel <joel_pa...@fws.gov>wrote: > I started taking my son in the field to monitor Bald Eagle and Peregrine > Falcon nests when he was 3 weeks old, progressing through to his teen > years in snotty weather; i.e. rainy/snowy Oregon/U.S. Pacific Northwest. > We (he and I only) started using an over the shoulder baby sling (many > varieties available), which worked well because you can put your binocs > next to the baby to keep the optics warm so they don't fog up, and it is > adjustable so you can vary how and where on your body your bioblob can be > carried outside or inside of your jacket. The baby sling also allows you > to use a lighter backpack to carry your field gear, milk, and extra > diapers, and allows you to adjust the twerp as you walk through brush and > over slippery downed logs. > > Our hikes often were several to multiple miles over mountainous terrain and > were amongst the absolute pleasures of my life; as an infant he slept > through most of it, but I hope he sensed how important it was for me to > share the wonderment of wild habitat. He always was swathed in cloth > diapers and wool diaper covers, and later I invested in good wool and > synthetic snivel gear (mostly patagonia) for him, which worked incredibly > well; easy to change and throw into a bag. As he grew older, I rigged a > seat to put him in the upper portion of my gregory backpack, rather than > use the larger framed child pack; but he did have that as well. And when > he could walk, he walked; we went slower, but it worked out well despite > skinned knees, muddy hands, and the attention span of a munchkin. > > He turned out well-adjusted, and is in forestry school, despite the > inherent risks he experienced with me. I am happy that he has taken my > affliction and love of outdoors and wild locales and turned it into a well > rounded understanding of personal risks and responsibility while in places > far from roads and hospitals. I consider myself lucky; my father, who is > also in 'our' natural resources profession, let me hang out with him > fighting wildland fires and working on controlled burns at a young age; and > encouraged my participation in fieldwork with his friends who were game > wardens, foresters, wildland firefighters, fisheries biologists, and > wildlife ecologists starting when I was 7 years old. I find the > discussion and advice to Simone to be amazing, and somewhat > disconcerting. As an ecologist, I would hope that we would combine our > brains and passions to heartily encourage any and all of us who have > well-behaved children to take them in the field. -- Liz Pryde PhD Candidate (off-campus) School of Earth and Environmental Sciences James Cook University Thornbury, Melbourne
