This is something I've been pondering over the past few months - partly due to what I read on here and partly for what I see in my RL. My conclusion is that no matter which way you put those 4 words, it's all just self-serving bullsh.. to try and make you feel better for the choices you make.
Look at where it's bandied about the most - when a Mum is having problems with feeding or sleeping and she is struggling with what choice she should make - and it's never easy to decide - and I actually think it's detrimental that when someone is having a crisis like that to say "oh happy Mummy/Baby = Happy Baby/Mummy" because more often than not ONE of the two is NOT HAPPY regardless of which choice is made. I know Mum's who went to FF because they *see* a happier baby, but the internal struggle and guilt they deal with over that can be huge and plague them for years. It's no different for a Mum who decides to continue to BF through bouts of mastitis, or with PND when the only meds she can take while BF aren't quite doing the job (and that's even if she does deicde to medicate due to her concern for bubs) because she knows it's the best thing for baby. And with the sleeping - how many truly co-sleep because you're over the moon happy about it? Nearly every baby would be happy to sleep with Mum, but I know I wasn't when I had to do it for nearly 5mths, but it's what I had to do so he (Alister) could get some sleep and I could manage a few hours sleep a night too if I was lucky (reflux and food sensitivity issues). Most of the people I know who co-sleep do so because it is a means to an end and helps them ride out sleep issues. I know only a handful of people who plan that from the outset with their babies, and even less who are 100% happy with having a child in their bed as time goes on.
This follows on through everything we do as parents to our children. I've had the children who don't eat (not fussy, just small eaters who prefer grazing) and it took me ages to get over that and just leave them be because they are MUCH happier to do what they do and not the forced to eat a meal they don't want. I know that they will survive without 3 square meals a day, but I'm not happy about it because I don't think it's enough to keep them going (and as coincidence would have it, my two *busiest* and most active children were the two who preferred to eat like that).
I'm not happy that one of my children is THE most stubborn and obstinate child you could ever meet which makes her hard to parent 99% of the time, but like it or not I have to embrace those traits because that's what makes her HER. With the two of us it's circles and roundabouts - if she's happy I'm not, if I'm happy she's not (usually in regards to keeping her room clean LOL, but in my defence we get bad mice problems and her messy room doens't help the issue)
So it IS about sacrifices you make for your children. They are just fluffy buzz words for what we have to believe to *survive* raising our children at times. You could even call it a Mantra, but it doesn't change the fact that in my opinion sometimes we do just have to survive what life throws at us while we are raising our children in the hope that one day it will be better
Reply With Quote
Completely agree. I think that's why the phrase irritates me. I hate sayings that are only what people want to hear. 
Bookmarks