Monday, November 03, 2008

Get your own damn uter...er, coffee

UPDATE - Per the discussion in the comments, here's some info from the National Advocates for Pregnant women on drug use during pregnancy. There's a fact sheet that refers to studies (although it doesn't name them! drat! My search continues!) and many articles that deal with how the "crack baby" myth is used to criminalize poor, and mostly African-American, women.


Back when I tried to keep my raging radical feminism separate from my raging political radicalism, I kept a separate blog called The Fetal Position where I angrily told theocrats, fundies, bitter folks young and old, be-penised or vagina-ed, to keep their grubby, most likely improperly-washed hands off and get their own damn uterus.

It’s also where I wrote this post, about an article from the Washington post detailing a report put out by the CDC in response to the U.S. ranking second to last in infant mortality rates in the developed world (in your face, Latvia!). According to the article, the report advised that all women who had functional ovaries should consider themselves ‘pre-pregnant’, whether they were planning on getting pregnant in the near future or otherwise, and therefore abstain from drinking fun things, eating fun things, doing fun things, or thinking of themselves as human beings entitled to have any enjoyment in their lives.

Of course, if you actually read the report, unlike me, then you would have known that it said a lot of things, including that the general health of women of child-bearing age could be improved. (Or, as John McCain would say, “health”.) But "Study gives detailed overview of complex issue with reasonable, science-based suggestions towards a solution" doesn't make for as catchy a headline as "Forever Pregnant".

Now, the CBC’s not going that far – but nothing exacerbates my Monday morning grouchies quite like two separate “Pregnant women who do X are bad!” stories. Don’t gain weight! Don’t drink coffee! Or else you are a TERRIBLE MOTHER who will probably want to have, like, ONE GLASS OF WINE, and should you suffer the tragedy of a miscarriage it will probably be YOUR FAULT because you went by a Starbucks and you INHALED.

Honestly, these types of reports are double-plus badness – another item on the already weighed-down shoulders of women, whose behaviours during pregnancy seem to be responsible for every possible aspect of their child and its development, from physical appearance, to character, to abilities and more (“damn you, slice of brie my mother had three months into her pregnancy, for preventing me from being a gorgeous, six-foot judo expert and concert pianist who solves crimes on her spare time using her hyper-sensitive sense of smell!”); PLUS another weapon for every self-righteous douchebag out there who gets off on judging a woman’s “morals” by her appearance, since nothing says irresponsible slut like a visibly pregnant woman, right douchebags? (Douchebags: “Nice sweater vest, man-hater.”) Better put her in her place, that uterus-having, life-creating, “I’m a human being with the ability to make decisions about what’s best for me, my body and my family”-thinking incubator.

Now, I’m not saying that research on healthy pregnancies isn’t important – it’s just frustrating that the studies (and the media coverage) focus on taking away stuff from women, rather than giving them stuff, like, say, comprehensive pre-natal health care. Because that would be SOCIALIST, and socialism is EVEN WORSE than having the second-highest infant mortality rate in the developed world. Or something like that.

5 comments:

Laura Payton said...

What if I gain 40lbs but drink lots of coffee? Does that cancel each other out?
Seriously, though, women do control what goes into a fetus. I'd rather have more information than not enough. If what a man ate affected a baby's health I'd totally kick my husband's ass to take care of his diet.

Anonymous said...

This one is a toss up for me I do agree that it's important for woman to know the information but like you said perhaps the way in which the information is being transmitted is not the right.

I have a talk with Charlotte the other day about a theory (which has roots in feminism) where basically the more you talk about it the worse you make. The example in phys ed is with the obesity epidemic... well it wasn't and epidemic before and it seems the more attention the media/gov't put on the problem of obesity the more people that become obese.

I'm not sure if I totally buy into this but there are some parts of it that are intriguing to me. I wonder what if they were to focus on the healthy lifestyle vs. the this is what happens to you if you don't live a healthy lifestyle, would be people more healthy instead of living in fear of being fat?

I don't know if this has quite the same effect on pregnancy, I would have to guess probably we have fewer women smoking/drinking excessively through their pregnancies than before. Long post to say that overall I agree.

floyd said...

Two very excellent comments! Y'all make my brain work. I think that the male diet and lifestyle is a huge gap in the research - after all, with sperm production being continuous throughout life, it seems reasonable that these would affect the quality of the sperm and, therefore, fetal development. But the research always focuses on the women, and it's often contradictory! Alcohol is a perfect example - in North America, you are murderous beast for having one drink, while in Europe women are encouraged to have the odd glass of wine or beer.

And I agree with the idea that how you present the info is important - most women are interested in doing the best for their offspring. But so many of these reports (and the reports on these reports) border on blaming women if anything goes wrong (and seriously? TONS of babies are underweight) (or should that be TONNES) (yes, yes it should) and it could be a result of many things, maybe even that her husband drank too many Slurpees or something.

And I am desperately trying to find this link - but there was a study done on women who were addicted to crack, which found that the poor diet that addicts had was the key factor in poor fetal development - not the crack. I will post if I find it - really thought-provoking stuff.

Thanks to everyone for their comments! Keep 'em coming, talk amongst yourselves!

Anonymous said...

really poor diet messed up babies more then crack did? Hmm I dono that sounds mighty strange to me...

Dale said...

Most of the 'studies' are urban myths, like people should be drinking 8 glasses of water/day, there's been no such study on the optimal amount of water to drink. OR the actual studies are taken out of context and 'modified', a good example would be the myth that file sharing is costing the movie and music industries $250 billion and 750,000 jobs per year in the US. These numbers are used to back up crazy Pro-IP bills that make the RIAA froth at the mouth, BUT the these numbers are taken from a '85 study on what counterfiet merchandise costs the WORLD-WIDE industry, and even then those numbers were the upper end of a range of estimates given.

By the way there is an actual study done on the quality of produced sperm for age groups. But I can't find the actual study, none of the news articles actually link or properly reference it (this is my biggest pet-peeve in the so-called professional world, it seems to be a growing trend where online articles do not reference the article they received their info).