Does Motherhood Make You More Emotional?

Prior to having a child, I could count on three fingers the movies or TV shows that made me tear up. None made me flat out cry. But since having a baby, it has been a different story. My hopes it was all the result of wacky hormones went out the window long ago when my hormones returned to normal. This past Sunday a movie actually made me tear up to the point I would say I was crying. That movie was LMN's Amish Grace.

Up until this point, I can't say I've ever watched LMN for longer than a few minutes. With the exception of the occasional historical drama, I'm not really a chick flick sort of gal. The only time I tune into Lifetime is to watch Project Runway. So it amazed me, first off, that an LMN movie could actually keep my attention long enough that I cared how it ended.

Amish Grace, in case you are unaware, is the story of the aftermath of the 2006 Amish school shootings. Nine girls were shot, five died, and the gunman took his life. The gunman did it because he was angry at God for letting his infant daughter die. The movie focuses on an Amish mother who lost a daughter and the widow of the gunman.

So what about this movie made me cry? The realistic performances of the actors and actress. The juxtaposition of the mothers in the movie grieving their daughters and my little daughter playing on the floor. I could feel their pain and that made my heart ache. It was also the gunman's wife who doesn't understand why her husband did what he did. She feels he abandoned her and their children. At one point, she comments he'd rather spend an eternity in hell than a lifetime with her.

The point of the movie was supposed to be about forgiveness. But for me the point of the movie was to put myself in someone else's shoes to for a couple of hours, to count my blessings and to realize how short and fleeting life is. It's the sort of movie I wouldn't have been able to appreciate were I not a wife and mother.

Rise in C-Section Rates Alarming

Last week ABC news reported c-sections are at an all-time high in the United States and they are now the most common operation in the nation. It also reported a good lot of these c-sections are unnecessary. This is a topic that always gets me fired up because it concerns every woman of childbearing age, a group that includes myself and most of my close friends.

I understand there always will be emergencies and that some of the c-sections preformed cannot be avoided. I also understand that any woman carrying more than twins cannot safely give birth naturally. Those c-sections cannot be avoided and I don't fault the mothers or the doctors for them.

The unnecessary, preventable c-sections, on the other hand, are another matter; that greatly concerns me. At the hospital shown in the news report, c-sections out numbered natural births 2-1. It didn't specify whether that was for the day ABC visited or whether that was the yearly rate, but I got the impression it was the yearly rate.

One of the reasons sited for the high c-section rates was larger baby size. Is it no coincidence that babies have gotten larger as Americans have gotten larger? We already know overweight and obese women have more pregnancy complications and harder deliveries than women who are of a healthy weight. A good number of c-sections could be avoided simply with a healthy body size. After all, how many thin women give birth to children weighing more than 8 lbs, 9 lbs tops? I don't know of any.

The second reason sited was fear of lawsuits. Ah, so it all comes down to us living in sue happy America. It makes me wonder how many of those lawsuit-avoiding c-sections really were the result of true emergencies and how many were the result of something that could have potentially resulted in complications. How actively involved were the mothers in the decision making, and how educated where they about the situation? Unfortunately, so few of us question our doctors because we believe they must know best. We fail to remember they are human beings who make mistakes just like the rest of us, human beings who feel they must cover their ass so their patients don't sue them.

Lastly, the group whose c-section rates were rising the fastest are women under 25. This is a low risk group so why the rise? Because, as ABC put it, some women are "too posh to push" and voluntarily schedule c-sections because it's more convenient for them. This group fails to realize a c-section is major abdominal surgery that comes with major risks to both mother and child. Many women are under the impression that because c-sections are routine they are safer than other surgeries when in fact they are not. Besides, if these women are "too post to push", then why would they want a permanent scar? I don't get it.

Reports like this truly scare me. And if they don't you, you probably haven't given the topic must thought.

You can view the ABC News report at http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/concern-rise-sections-10184910

We're Not All One Size Fits All

Have you paid attention any attention to how moms are portrayed in the media? Specifically, I'm referring to TV commercials and print ads. Have you noticed how mothers of all kinds are lumped together into this vague, ambiguous category called "mom"? I never did until I became a mom myself, and now I look at these ads with a more critical eye.

I'm not sure about you, but I didn't change into a different person just because I became a mother. I still dress the same, have the same interests and still have the same personality. I maintained my individuality and I'm sure you did, too.

But, not the moms in these ads. First of all, they all dress basically the same -- conservative, bland, almost preppy. There's no style or personality. Are these ads telling us that, as mothers, we're supposed to fit some sort of mold, to want to dress the same, look the same? Don't even get me started on "mom jeans". The phrase makes me cringe every time I hear it. I would not go near a pair of so-called mom jeans with a 10-foot pole. That style of pants is actually a style that was popular in the 1980s. Again, are they implying that moms are behind the times simply because they are moms?

There is also the implication that we all have similar tastes and lifestyles. What exactly does a welfare mom have in common with a mom who has her own housekeeper and has never worked a day in her life? What does a yoga mom have in common with the world's fattest mom? Nothing. So why do advertisers think they can market to all of us collectively?

I don't want to be lumped into a category and labeled simply because I had a child. I'm a unique person and I value my and your individuality. Childless women aren't treated in ads like one cohesive group. Neither are dads. Why are moms? So until a "mom friendly" product speak specifically to me and my life, I'm not going to buy it.