|
|
Home
and Family
Unwanted Guests
by A. Ross
This has been a particularly busy wedding season, and may all
the blessings with which the young couples are showered, come
to fruition. Having studied hearing loss and its causes, I am
fully aware of the wilful damage I am inflicting on my
eardrums by attending many weddings, several times a week,
and rejoicing with each family. The normal decibel level
which is comfortable to the human ear is between 45 and 50.
Most of us have become accustomed to higher levels than that
in our daily lives, due to traffic, electrical appliances in
the home, road works and building works, to mention but a few
generators of noise. However, we have been warned that
frequent exposure to anything above 85 decibels, does
irreversible damage to our ear drums. The decibel level in an
average wedding hall is well over 100! Even when the band is
slightly muted, three or four hundred guests, many of them
teenage girls who have particularly strident voices, trying
to have conversations, produce quite some decibel level.
There was a time when nobody would have dreamt of taking
toddlers to a wedding, let alone newborns. Nowadays however,
nobody dreams of leaving them at home. A middle-aged lady
commented to a group of young women that they were not doing
their babies any good by taking them to a crowded hall, not
to mention the noise level. They exchanged glances, then one
of the youngsters said patronizingly, "Things are different
nowadays, you know". Things certainly are different.
Statistics show that there is more early deafness in the
world than there has ever been before!
Why should anyone want to take a baby to a wedding? Firstly,
it is an extra expense to hire baby sitters for the evening,
besides which it is not easy to get reliable baby sitters.
Moreover, if the baby is really very tiny, he is most likely
to need a feed some time, so there is no point in leaving him
with a baby sitter. Secondly, if they are close relatives,
they do not want the baby to 'miss' the fun. Then there is
the question of photographs: mothers do not want their little
treasure to be missing from the family picture.
Last week I saw the sister of the bride, who had given birth
four days previously, sitting at the wedding, nursing her
adorable little son. I was not his only admirer. He was
passed from hand to hand, cooed over and kissed, of course,
by dozens of girls and women. When the band started up with a
crash, he showed he was a healthy specimen, by demonstrating
that his startle reflex was functioning well. The startle
reflex is the baby's response to a sudden loud noise: it is a
signal of stress, telling the body it is in danger. In order
to overcome this danger and escape if need be, mammals
receive an extra flow of adrenalin into the blood stream, and
the heart pounds. Nothing will happen if this occurs once or
even twice, but it is dangerous to repeat the experiment.
(The absence of the startle reflex sometimes awakens parents
to the idea that their baby might have a hearing problem).
In the 'olden days,' people did not take their babies into
any public places if they could help it. For example, before
polio was eradicated, there was always the fear that Baby
might catch some terrible bug. Nowadays, when children have
been immunized against most contagious diseases, this fear
has gone. Nevertheless, there are many germs around and it is
not a good idea to let a large number of loving relatives
pass them on to your baby. He will not benefit in the least
from the experience. It is not 'fun' for him as the mothers
might think.
Passive smoking is also mainly a thing of the past except in
Israel where men still smoke in public places. This would be
another reason not to take a baby to a wedding if there was
the slightest chance of him breathing in fumes from
cigarettes, even if they are not smoking straight over
him.
With modern equipment and the ability to manipulate
photographs, if you are desperate to have baby on the family
picture, have it put in later! He does not have to have been
there.
What is a young woman going to do, even if she is convinced
of the truth of these words? If she decides that a noisy
crowded wedding hall is indeed not a place for a baby, the
rest of the family, including the bride herself, may try to
persuade her to change her mind. She might think that she
will leave the baby asleep in a quiet corner of the hall, but
things do not always work out that way. Besides, is there a
quiet corner? Alternatively, she may have a friend who lives
near the wedding hall. If it can be arranged, this friend
could look after the baby for the evening. She could call (on
one of those useful but controversial mobile phones!), for
the mother to come over if she is needed. A baby alarm, left
with a reliable neighbour, obviates the need for a baby
sitter. There is always a 'but' to every suggestion, and
women have to decide for themselves that a wedding hall is
not the place for babies and toddlers.
Some mothers who insist on taking their under threes to
weddings, have very little time to enjoy the simcha
anyway. They are well aware of the fact that a small child
can easily be trampled under foot during the dancing. The
mother cannot take her eyes off him for one minute.
Furthermore, the child becomes overtired and frets
incessantly, although he is so well-behaved at home. When she
is not wiping chocolate off his mouth or tucking his sweet
little shirt into his trousers, she is worrying where he is.
Neither the mother nor the child will enjoy the evening.
So, be brave and stay at home if you cannot get a baby
sitter. "My neighbor and best friend would never forgive me
if I missed her daughter's wedding," protested one young
woman. It will soon be forgotten that you were not there, and
you, too, will get over the disappointment. In the same way
that you will be a negligent mother if your child is exposed
to too much sun, and gets sun burnt, you may not expose him
too much noise and too many germs. The only difference is
that the effects of the sun burn are evident right away!
|
