I went to the Animal Fair...

[beetiger]

I took Rhys to the Dutchess County Fair today. It was a longer drive up the Taconic than I expected, but he slept the whole way, so it wasn't really a big deal. Rhys was amazingly good the whole day, giggling at pigs and crawling around in the horticulture exhibit area and letting me drink 4H nearly-right-out-of-the-cow milkshakes and eat corn dogs and stuff, though he did eat a good portion of my pierogies and managed to swipe a bunch of fried clams. I won him a set of fuzzy dice for his stroller by looking young at the guess-your-age booth. He didn't sleep the whole day once we arrived, but he didn't whine or fuss either. He seemed like he was just having so much fun, like this was a great world he'd decided to show up for.

You know, some days I feel really kind of guilty about still being home with the baby after almost a year, doing what sort of feels like leisure activities all of the time. But today was one of those days when I just felt lucky. "While you poor fools were out making a living, I got to hear my son break out in laughter at his first carousel ride!" kind of lucky. I wouldn't trade these things for the world.

(An aside: Someone said they thought this icon looked "intimidating". Does it?)

Comments

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

First off, you live in one of the few modern western countries which has no laws relating to maternity leaves, lumping them in with sick leaves in most cases. In Canada, birth mothers get 52 weeks of mat leave, paid for by Employment Insurance, which in turn is paid for by contributions from the paycheques of all working Canadians. (Non-birth mothers get 35 weeks, I believe, and fathers can take all or part of that 35 weeks as parental leave as well, either at the same time as or immediately following the seventeen weeks which are reserved exclusively for birth mothers.) Don't feel guilty about staying home with your baby. He needs you more than any workplace could, and you're blessed to have this time with him.

Second, anyone who feels that icon is intimidating is looking to be intimidated. Ignore them. It's a great picture.

[shatterstripes.livejournal.com]

It's the mouth. Straight line. And a challenging stare into the viewer's eyes. You don't look like someone who'd take any shit in that icon.

Although when I factor in the possibilities for the rest of the photo I'm not so sure about the expression when combined with the body...

[thesqueak.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I feel guilty for staying home with Cheyenne, too. But then I realize, if I wasn't home with her, I wouldn't have been there when she smiled or laughed for the first time. Honestly, I'd feel more guilty shoving her in day care with a bunch of strangers taking care of her.
Besides, it's not always easy to stay home with a child. You don't get to go home after 'work' every day. It's a big responsibility. Don't feel guilty for accepting it. :)

[tikvah.livejournal.com]

The picture could be a little intimidating to someone who doesn't know you too well. Your expression could be interpreted as a scowl.

[beowabbit]

I’m glad you and Rhys got to have that experience!

This icon doesn’t look at all intimidating to me, but it does strike me as making you look sad, which is not exactly what I associate with you.

[melskunk.livejournal.com]

*shuffles in, embaressed*
I think it's more that it's probably your 'neutral' look and that doesn't seem neutral to me. I'm often accused of scowling <:)

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

Your nostrils are flared and I'm afraid you're going to eat me. That's OK, I do it too.

Cool Day!

[allessindra.livejournal.com]

It sounds like it was an awesome day -- I'm glad, for you, that Rhys had such fun.

Reading over other comments, I clearly have no maternal instinct. I truly do not grok the significance of seeing the child do something for the first time. All of those things are going to happen again and again and again -- and it's the 'again' that matters more than teh 'first', as all those things are aspects of normal development, and if they only happen *once* then it is a *PROBLEM*.

I was never so happy as when my kids were in some sort of care, and *I* got to be with adults on a regular basis, and get some time when I was NOT completely and totally responsible minute by fucking minute for another living being. The children also got to widen their experience of the world, and meet new people, and interact and integrate experiences in ways I would not have been able to do, or would not have thought of.

Why is this a bad thing, and why am I considered a lesser person for it? (not necessarily you, beetiger, by other people...)

gah. rhetorical question.

Re: Cool Day!

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

It's not a bad thing! It's a different viewpoint. I'm an old-fashioned mommy-type, who has a career that meshes very well with mothering because for me, mothering comes first. (I'm a teacher.) It did, even before I was a mother. I know lots of people who decided not to take their full mat leave because it didn't mesh with the other career they had, which came first in their minds.

I must admit that I'm going to revel in the solitude when my sister-in-law takes my little girl for their weekly outing this afternoon. I do every week. I may even do something useful, like write, with that time. And I don't think I could handle being home full-time, all the time, with no income of my own, even if we could afford that. So I guess I'm sitting on the fence on this one.

We all do what's best for the people we love. That should include ourselves. If you wouldn't keep your sanity at home all day with babies, then thank whatever you hold sacred that you're no longer expected to, and others can look after your kids more professionally than you would. Bottom line - guilt has no place in this. You're doing what works for your family.

Re: Cool Day!

[bookwurm.livejournal.com]

My mother was very much the same way when my sister and I were growing up. For Mom, I think it was honestly a case of her going completely nuts if she stayed home full-time with two small children. Like you, she needed adult interaction and didn't need the "firsts." I never felt like we were less important than her career or anything like that. She did what she thought would be best for the whole family, and I cannot understand why some people consider mothers who work outside the home to be "bad people."

[sydb42.livejournal.com]

I've never met you, so I don't know what your normal "at rest" face is. Like someone else who commented, I get asked "are you ok?" or told "you look mad" when I'm just sitting, so I definitely understand about facial expressions being mis-interpreted. Having said that, the picture in your user icon looks to me like you've been interrupted and you look vaguely annoyed at the interruption. Not intimidating, but not happy either.

As for being a SAHM, I love it, and feel lucky to be able to do it every single day. It's not just about seeing the firsts, it's about all sorts of things....getting to see her play pretend and know what experience in her day she's acting out, being able to understand some of her baby talk that no one else gets, being able to teach her things and be amazed at all the things she picks up all on her own, etc. etc. etc. It's also hard work...it takes a special person to be able to sit at home (or be out) with a child (or children) all day, then still be with that child all evening and possibly up with them in the middle of the night as well. Of course, I think it also takes a special person to be able to leave and go earn the money day after day so the family can live comfortably. Both are hard to do. BTW, I intend to be a full-time SAHM at least until my daughter and any siblings she may have are in school, and even then I will make sure to be home when they get home. And, she gets the kid interaction through MOMS Club, which is the main positive feature about daycare, IMO.

[tygermoonfoxx.livejournal.com]

Yes, the icon is intimidating in a "don't mess with mama" kind of way.

Don't feel guilty about being home with the kid. If you can afford it and you're not being a burden on society, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a mommy as a full time career. I couldn't think of anything more fulfilling. I know society doesn't see it that way (it's even worse for those of us who don't have children and elect to be housewives) but it's true. Anyone who says it isn't work has never had to clean ketchup off the cat or wipe the walls your angel painted with diaper material at three in the morning.

the "intimidating" picture

[(Anonymous)]

I don't find it intimidating -- but it's you, and I can't imagine you being intimidating. If I had never met you I can imagine how it might seem that way: your eyes are rolled directly toward the viewer, even though you're facing a different direction. Combine that with the lack of smile, and a stranger might infer a harsh intent to the gaze. And since it's not clear from the picture that you're a head shorter than me, I might well find that intimidating.

But because I know you, I have to fit it to my memories of you, and you're not an intimidating person. I also don't remember you as a sad person, so I'm not inclined to read the mild frown as sadness. Instead, I see it as bewilderment. You're puzzled. And in that light, I think it's rather cute.

Of course, none of this interpretation would apply if I didn't have four years of experiences associated with that face.

--MGK

Re: the "intimidating" picture

[beetiger.livejournal.com]

*tries to get her mommy-addled brain to put a name behind the initials, and fails*

I'm going to be almost instantly embarrassed, I'm sure...but who are you? :)