Pookie's First Flight

[trigger warning: this post will discuss themes related to strong emotion, miscarriage, fear, and grief]

 Dear Friends,

Guess who just took his first airplane flight?!? [and probably his last... more on that later].

We recently took a trip to Boston, and this was the first time I'd flown with Pookie. Previously, all trips we've taken with him have been some form of road trip.

The first exciting moment was when we got to the security checkpoint at the departure airport. I had Pookie in my carry on, so he'd be with me, plus I wouldn't quite trust the baggage handlers to not lose him or something... This was an airport in a smaller city, and despite Pookie's X-ray showing the sand weights inside of him as just "dense", they swabbed him down, he came up clean, and the young man who was the agent swabbing him down was very receptive to my explanation of "please be careful, he's a bereavement bear who is weighted to weigh the same as my son who died..." to which his response was "that is such a good idea!" We cleared security with no issues and went on our way.

Pookie liked being up high. I love being up high. We had a reasonable flight, layover, and flight, though a little bumpy because the weather was gusty.

I've already posted about Pookie's adventures in Boston. I'll skip over that, and tell you about the day we left Boston.

After our visit in Boston was over, I was ready to go home. I'd over-done it a bit, had a sore foot, and was having an off day. Then a character in my book had a miscarriage, and then a friend did too, so I was hearing about that all day... all that to say, I wasn't exactly in a great place starting the whole travel home. I'd already been weepy on and off, and was generally really ready to just get back to the comfort of my own home.

When in the airport in Boston, we'd successfully checked our bags despite having to rearrange some weight, and had plenty of time to spare. The security line was completely empty, so we thought this would go smoothly! I always opt out for personal reasons, and choose to be patted down rather than walk through the x-ray gates. For some reason, I was waiting forever, while my carry on and purse were already long since on the other side (and, incidentally, not within my view, either).

Eventually, a female agent finally came around to pat me down, and asked me where my things were. I pointed out 2 of my bins, and then as I saw the third bin with Pookie - unsurprisingly having been selected to be swabbed down - I saw Calvin's face, and my heart started to pound. I knew something was wrong and that it would not be as simple as it was on the way there.

As I was getting patted down, hubby and the other agents filled me in that, because Pookie's insides look dense and funny on x-ray, we couldn't touch him, and they had literally called the bomb squad. Despite the swab coming up clean. I started to shake and get very upset, as they hemmed and hawed, and wouldn't let us near the bear (though the female agent was very kind, and made sure that while she finished the pat down, I was facing Pookie the whole time, and she held a box of tissues near me for most of the rest of this story).

When the bomb squad agent came, he asked about the x-ray and about the swab: and despite it being clean, since he had been called and because the x-ray just shows that the sand is dense, and doesn't show what it is, and since the other agents didn't believe our (true) story about what a Molly Bear is, he had to check things himself. At this point he told us that he has, in the past, actually cut open teddy bears, to sample the sand and make sure it's not problematic. This, however, is problematic on another front: this is traumatic for the loss parents, since the bear is a stand-in for their child. It is traumatic to be flagged as a threat, when you are flying with a bear that is supposed to bring you comfort. And it is particularly traumatic when they think your poor little bear is a bomb threat, and start threatening him with knives. Not only that, but the bears are weighted to the tenth of an ounce! Cutting open the bear and taking a sample to test could ruin that, which would be horrible too.

The bomb squad man seemed (a tiny bit) sorry to be putting us through this, though the other agents didn't seem to be. But at this point he talked down to me, and said that "bad guys" (literally his wording) use teddy bears to smuggle things. And he only said that he had cut open bears, not that he was about to do it to Pookie, but it was pretty strongly implied that he was considering it. Eventually he said that we would have to expect this treatment at any airport we went through (we didn't, obviously, but we don't know which airports will have hyper agents and which have more humane agents, so that's a gamble). And I asked what our options would be - if we don't want him threatened with surgery. He said an option would be to put the bear in the checked baggage. I didn't say it in reply - but they scan those too, and open those when I'm not there to defend Pookie! So NO WAY IN H.... would I trust that option! So it seems our only option would be to NEVER FLY AGAIN.

At some point the other agents, including a supervisor, seemed to get tired of watching me try not to hyperventilate, and said loudly in their huddle of agents that "THIS YOUNG LADY IS CLEARLY QUITE DISTRAUGHT, CAN WE FIND A SOLUTION?" After which they muttered for a bit and decided to let us go, but with a strong warning.

As you can imagine, this was absolutely terrifying to go through. And very, very difficult to relive, as I have been typing. Hubby was just as upset as I was, and it took us a very long time to calm down. We both looked reasonably calm by the time we boarded our plane, though we were still quite overwrought by the experience. And as you can imagine, neither of us ever wants to go through airport security with Pookie again. Pookie himself was very patient through it all, and gave marvelous hugs to me and Daddy (hubby) as soon as we were through. But despite the fact that I love planes, we will not be flying again. And if you have a weighted bear, I urge serious caution about traveling with them by plane - at least as long as airport security functions the way it currently does. The sense of relief when we'd finished the layover and second flight and got out of the airport and finally to our own car, on our own terms... it was such a long trip. We were so glad to get home.


Yours,

Sarah

To subscribe, find the "subscribe by email" note in the left column and enter your email there. Posts will be emailed directly to you whenever I post them!

Resource list: Visit my spreadsheet at www.tinyurl.com/infantloss

Learning to Reply

Dear Friends,

Over the past few days, I ran into some difficult questions. Ones I've had asked of me before, but they have been ones that are tricky to reply to. I want to share a little success story, because I'm really happy with how I managed to reply. That said, I'm going to make sure that there are no names or identifying information, and reduce it to more of a "type" of situation, so as to not put anyone on the spot.

The first issue I want to address is actually about posting on social media. A friend posted some pictures and screenshots of a discussion, regarding certain aspects of infant loss. She put a warning at the top, something like "caution, trigger, post contains infant loss", but then because of the way that particular site posts, the images were still visible without having to click to open more of her post. Because of that, it meant that the potentially triggering discussions and images were very visible, and, at least for me, were very triggering.

I went through several stages of response. My first was anger, frustration, and deep grief. My next was to consider reporting the post. But I generally agreed with the post, just not how it was showing up! So after wrestling with the fact that I was emotional, and didn't want to do anything hasty, I reached out to the poster.

That, right there, is part of what I'm proud of. I honestly feel that most issues can be resolved by one-on-one conversation, but it can be really hard to work up the courage to even start the process.

I started by explaining that the post was showing up that way, but also mentioned why I found it triggering: that it was an emotional subject and some of the screenshots contained emotion-laden replies; the images were pretty strong, and the topic as a whole was pretty heavy stuff. I tried to make sure that, as I was telling her, I included that I was not objecting to the post, per se, nor to the content... simply to the fact that I couldn't un-see it.

Because I started off calmly and rationally, and assumed good intent, we were able to have a calm and respectful and considerate discussion, which resulted in her choosing, of her own accord, to remove the items, because she could not figure out a way to conceal them. It also resulted in me reaching out to the hosting social media site, asking that they create a feature that would allow a person to choose to mark part of their post as something the reader has to choose to reveal rather than having it thrust upon them. I'll let you know if I get a reply! (plus, seriously, this would be handy to help avoid movie spoilers, too!)


The other conversation I had - and I still struggle with how to handle all the variations of this question - is the "well, are you going to have more kids?" question.

This one is tricky, because it can be intended a lot of ways, it can be received and interpreted a lot of ways, and even worse, can be phrased so many ways. Most seem to hope to see my pain lessened, and think another child will help, or are just curious, or hope that I'm healthy, but some seem to think that my Charlie can be replaced, at least in some senses. Many people who ask this do not even consider the fact that some people don't want more than one child, and this might count as that child, and most people don't consider the difficulties of infertility, which can be interwoven with the answers that might go through our heads. And they often don't realize that they are asking some pretty personal health questions.

Here are some examples of different phrasing. I'm sure you can hear how they have different nuances:
- "will you have more kids?"
- "can you have more kids?"
- "do you want more kids?"
- "you can have more kids, though"


As for the conversation I am proud of, though: it happened with someone that I haven't seen since before Charlie was born, and as she remembered who I was and put me into context, she asked me if we were going to have more kids. In the past I have responded with a variation of "well, we've always wanted a big family....". But depending on how they ask, that doesn't always feel sufficient, and in this case, I knew her from a religious context. So I am proud I actually had the presence of mind to say "Well, actually, that's a complicated question." This made her think for a moment, and gave me some space (which I have found to be a crucial piece for me) and allowed me to gather my wits and couple it with the reply of "it depends on God and other circumstances" and then my usual "but we have always wanted more than one child." I think that's my best combo so far.

*Note. I'm aware I don't have to reply to this question. I don't owe anyone a discussion of my fertility, uterine health, sex life, or even family plans... that's between me and my doctor and me and my husband. But at the same time, I'm balancing my own privacy and comfort with still being tactful and polite, so I'm working on developing replies and responses that are calm, considered, polite, and right for me. Each person will have different circumstances, questions, and issues they wrestle with, and different ways they decide to deal with them.

These are just some thoughts on how, over the past nearly-two years, I have grown and learned what common questions are; which ones are hard for me; and the fact that having the chance to have some space to think - and maybe have the other person think - (by saying "excuse me?" or "that's actually complicated...") is very helpful for me. I'm not in the same headspace as I was last year, and my grief has changed shape. I would not have been able to respond this way last year.

Lots of love,

Sarah

To subscribe, find the "subscribe by email" note in the left column and enter your email there. Posts will be emailed directly to you whenever I post them!

Resource list: Visit my spreadsheet at www.tinyurl.com/infantloss

Breastfeeding vs. Male Entitlement

So just recently, a friend of mine had an experience that made me upset (and her more so). She was told by a relative, who had not said anything prior to this, that breastfeeding in "public" (in this case, at his home) was not ok. Could she please be more discreet and do it in another room?

This troubles me on several levels. These are not listed in any particular order.

First of all, satisfying the male.
Second, removing the act from view, and non-normalization
Third, isolating the mother.
Fourth, ignoring the child's needs.
Fifth, making their protest age-dependent.

First: Satisfying the male.

Breastfeeding, by its very nature, is something only a woman can do. There might be isolated medical cases you can cite to the contrary, but under normal conditions, only a woman can do it. I believe that it is this reason, similar to menstruation, female orgasm, and masturbation, --- in other words, things that might be uncomfortable for a late 19th century male to think about --- that breastfeeding is a semi-taboo topic in our western American culture, and why, in our culture, we ALLOW men to "feel uncomfortable" around breastfeeding. And - here's the kicker - we allow that discomfort to tell us what to do. Why should a man's discomfort take precedence over the health and well-being of a child? A man would not force a 5 year old to drink apple juice in another room because "apple juice for a child makes him uncomfortable". The child needs fluids, and if the mother and father decide that their child needs a meal, or a drink, or other PARENTAL CARE - than it is not in the purview of another man to whine about their parenting and to force them to do it his way.

Second: Removing the act from view, and non-normalization.

If we persist in saying yes to these requests to satisfy these males' slight discomfort, and hide breastfeeding away in special "breastfeeding rooms" and bathrooms and bedrooms and under covers, then people don't get used to it. If people won't get used to seeing it, they won't get used to the idea that breastfeeding is a normal - in fact, the normal - way to feed children. It is ideal, in so many ways there is not room to list them all. Biologically, even the best formula doesn't live up to the adaptability of breastmilk, and the closeness and emotional stability nursing gives the child. So why do we not consider it to be the best way, and all others are good options for when breastfeeding is not possible, for whatever reason?

Third, isolating the mother.

By asking the mother to move, rather than letting her choose time, location, and level of coverage, the mother is left out of many activities and ends up very alone. If the mother chooses, then it is her choice, and she may be using the nursing time to have some quiet/alone time - and that's fine. But if it is forced on her, it becomes unwanted solitude. This is not fair to the mother, who is part of the society and community in which she is nursing, especially if it is her family or in-laws. And it is not fair to the child, either, especially if they are slightly older, since they learn that their way of eating, connecting with mom, and they themselves, are not welcome.

Fourth, ignoring the child's needs.

If a child has been raised as a breastfed child, no person (or man's) discomfort or request can take away that this is how the child is used to being fed, comforted, and hydrated. To make the request that the mother nurse the baby in another room could potentially cause the mother to put off the nursing session and delay the child's needs. This is not fair to do to the child.

Fifth, making their protest age-dependent.

This is a fascinatingly culturally dependent objection. Many people in the United States have come to realize that nursing for the first 6 months to 1 year is recommended by the medical community and may be a very good idea. What many Americans do not realize is that in many other cultures it is perfectly normal to breastfeed into toddlerhood, and not only gives them a healthy, safe food, it also gives them the haven of Mommy to come back to periodically while exploring the world. This makes the child more confident in their explorations and sure of themselves, if they have a safety net. The U.S. is not used to this idea. Unfortunately, many people - particularly males, interestingly - act ok with small babies breastfeeding, but start to act uncomfortable when the child gets older. However, the benefits to mother and child DO NOT CHANGE just because the child passes a birthday. The mother and child will wean when that mother and that child are ready. And it is NEVER the purview of a non-parent to object to the parenting choices of others.

PLEASE, friends, support all nursing moms. They are trying to give their babies the best, and do not need an entitled male to make the difficult job of parenting even harder.

Oh, and by the way: it's LEGAL, in all PUBLIC SPACES, in OHIO. So if anyone tells you you can't, at a place like a library, a mall, a restaurant, a park, etc: tell them that it actually is your right per Ohio Revised Code § 3781.55. So there.

Most sincerely yours,
~ Sarah

Infant loss resource document: www.tinyurl.com/infantloss