There is such a thing as a stupid question.

OK, I admit it.  One of the reasons I love taking Grace out with me, especially to comfortable places where my family is well known, is the attention.  Church is one of those comfortable places, and there’s a hundred surrogate grandmothers eager to dote on “their” new baby.

One thing that happens whenever we go out- whether it be among friends or strangers, is that there are a few standard questions that get asked.  The answers, in no particular order, include:
- almost 3 weeks.
- very easy- it’s raising them that’s hard.
- 7lb 12oz (and the corollary answer: just over 8lbs).
- yes, she does look just like her sister at this age.
- sleep deprived, but this won’t last forever.
- Ruth adores her, and is being very gentle with her, we’ll see how long that lasts.

There’s one question, though, that I’m never sure how to answer. “Is she a good baby?”

And maybe I only notice it now, because I’ve been reading FA blogs, but that use of the language of morality attached to a 2 week old is just… jarring. What’s the alternative to a “good” baby?

“Nope. She’s a bad baby. I wish I could trade her in for a better one.”

Because the question is usually asked by well-intentioned Church ladies, I try to stick with a neutral answer. “Is there any other kind?”

Often, they’ll sort of splutter back, “Well, I mean, is she a quiet baby / is she easy to take care of / does she cry alot / is she letting you get any sleep?” I know what they meant. I just really hate the question. It comes down to “Is she convenient?”

“Nope. She’s an evil baby. She sleeps in the afternoon and is hungry at night just to screw with my head.”

She’s 3 freakin’ weeks old. She isn’t supposed to be convenient. And somehow, attaching moral language to that, calling it ‘good’ nor some vague ‘not good’ is… irritating to say the least.

And I wonder, too, where this came from. Grace happens to be breastfed on demand. That’s my choice, we’re able to make it work. Not everybody makes the same choice or has the same options. Different strokes and all that. Even knowing that, my family asks questions such as “are you putting her on some kind of schedule?” (um, no. “on demand” means she eats when she wants to, and she’ll settle into a schedule that works for her soon enough. At which point, I’m fortunate enough to be on leave so I have time to fit my life into her schedule, not the other way ’round.) “Are you thinking about supplementing her?” (um, no. Formula isn’t any more filling. Her stomach is tiny, changing the food we put into it isn’t going to change that.)

Whatever. This really didn’t start out as a merits-of-breast-feeding rant.

The thing is- the whole thing about sleeping and eating and ‘being good’ comes back to this idea that somehow “good” is all tied up with the ability to fit into someone else’s idea of what she should be eating. A “good” baby is one that eats as much as, and when, it’s convenient for someone else. And I wonder, too, about the application of this “good baby” crap to formula-fed babies. A “good baby” is one that wants to eat the externally imposed amount. A baby who is content with less is an endless source of worry, and the one who cries for more is something other than “good”. Sound familiar?

Nice to know that by the age of 2 weeks, a good girl knows how to restrict her eating to keep someone else happy.

Good Baby? Don’t know about that. She’s an awesome baby, a delightful, wonderful, beautiful, crazy-making, loud, inconvenient, shaved-howler-monkey of a baby. And awake now. And hungry.