Fertile Feminism

The bare truth on covering up

Fertile Fem — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:10:20 +0000

Annie at PhD in Parenting has created a video to accompany an amazing post she wrote last year entitled ‘Covering up is a feminist issue.’ Read the article, watch the video and spread the word. Telling us how we can or can’t expose and use our bodies is oppression, pure and simple.

Gender according to teens

Fertile Fem — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:29:30 +0000

I was going through boxes of memorabilia from my childhood at my parents’ home recently and came across a clutch of papers from a class I took in high school. I believe it was my freshman or sophomore year and I even vaguely remember participating in the exercise described. Reading the answers my peers and I had been conditioned to give (and believe) saddened me greatly. Here’s what it said:

ANSWERS (FEMALES)

Traits of Femininity

kind
caring
considerate
weak (at heart)
strong
loving
emotional
little
compromise
lady-like
proper
sweet
nice
clean
pretty
obedient
stays home
advisor
maternal
charming
sensitive
soft
calm
outspoken
moody
instinctual
cry
compassionate
frail
tenderness
delicate

Traits of masculinity

brave
big
tall
dirty
mean
angry
strong
shows little emotion
forgetful
goes out and works
handsome
gruff
responsible
insensitive
impatient
authoritative
sweaty
unreasonable
loud
outspoken
don’t cry
friend
advisor
bold
leader
paternal
protector
decision maker
hard worker
pride
strong will

Advantages of being female

live longer
can cry and be emotional
can spend lots of time in the bathroom
just better
guys will get you whatever you want
known as being patient and caring
can get more things done in a quicker amount of time
have an outlook of the future that is reasonable
don’t have to pay on dates all the time
people are easier on girls
can have children
can wear girls and guys clothes

Disadvantages of being a female

monthly cycle
have to carry the baby
PMS
expected to be proper and ladylike all the time
males are given more authority
has to sit down to pee and can’t pee outside
parents won’t allow girls to do as much as boys get to do
bras
being thought of as weak and dumb

Advantages of being a male

makes decisions based on logic
no PMS
no childbirth
don’t have to worry about weight
no monthly cycle
don’t have to squat to pee outside
given authority
can get point across better (is heard more)
don’t have to worry about hair
better at sports
can hold more liquor
know stuff about cars
not expected to look your best all the time

Disadvantages of being a male

expected to be strong
not allowed to cry
people are harder on males

ANSWERS (MALE)

Traits of femininity

independence
outspoken
emotional
mannered
laid back
picky
childbirth
petite
small
high pitched voice
soft
elegant
unconditional love

Traits of masculinity

brave
strong
stud
stubborn
charmer
slob
protective
action
courteous
muscular
large
deep voice
rough

Advantages of being a female

can wear anything
have the upper hand in dating

Disadvantages of being female

worry about weight

Advantages of being male

Ladies, please: less greedy, more breedy

Fertile Fem — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 15:36:13 +0000

In the news today we are treated to the kindly ‘advice’ of one well-meaning (male) OB, in which he encourages women to become “better at resolving the conflict” between career and family and have their children when they are biologically meant to, between age 20 and 35. Instead of picking apart everything that’s wrong with this advice, let’s turn it around and say what should have been printed but was (as always) completely ignored. [Note: The article's text has been partially copied and pasted with wording changed for satire. Italics indicate text I have added. Copyright of the original article remains with the author].

“The message that ages 20 to 35 are the best for a woman to have a child should be taught to all genders in schools and governments alongside education about the realities of and societal need to support ~~teenage~~ pregnancies and ~~contraception~~ parenthood, the leader of the UK’s maternity doctors has said.

Dr Tony Falconer, the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), warned against the pronounced trend towards ~~older motherhood~~ discouraging women from having children in their most fertile years by making it difficult for them to be mothers and work/go to school and said ~~women and couples~~ politicians and business leaders have to become “better at resolving the conflict” between their ~~careers~~ profits and ~~family plans~~ decency as human beings.

“It’s never our ~~responsibility~~ business[as ~~doctors~~ men] to tell ~~people~~ women when they should have their family, because there are all sorts of patriarchal constraints and societal pressures,” he told the Guardian in his first major interview since taking up the post in October.

But he added: “There’s no doubt that between 20 and 35 is the time to have your children. We are building up a difficulty for ourselves as a society by ~~people’s expectations~~ capitalism’s sexist limitations that ~~they~~ women ~~will~~ would be prudent to wait until they are older. That’s a very complex issue (and one few men in power care about), but it is a problem.”

His views on what he sees as the increasing problem of ~~women waiting to have children~~ society forcing women to choose between or compromise on matters of family and career could cause controversy.

But Falconer said there is strong evidence that ~~women who leave starting a family until they are 35~~ industries that refuse to place any value on or make provisions for employees simultaneously undertaking pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding and parenting will have reduced ~~fertility~~ credibility and so find it harder to ~~conceive~~ hire and keep employees, even more so once ~~they hit 40~~ men are required to more fully participate in childrearing.”

Now that, my friends, would actually be a radical concept in a progressive newspaper. Telling us we should have our babies earlier isn’t news, it’s recycled sexism with a big dollop of duh.

Photo credit

Sex for sale: the dark side of the Super Bowl

Fertile Fem — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:45:20 +0000

What happens when you get many thousands of men together for a major sporting event?

Along with the hot dogs and beer, women and girls go on sale.

The NFL Super Bowl is apparently one of the biggest human trafficking events in the United States, with tens of thousands of women and girls brought in to provide sex for the fans at last year’s game in Miami. Many of them were forced into prostitution and some were underage. State agencies rescued 24 children who had been sold into sexual slavery at that event alone. This year, officials in Texas (where the Super Bowl will be held) are cracking down on traffickers and warning ‘customers’ that if they buy sex in the days leading up to the big game, they must know they are likely complicit in trafficking, human enslavement and/or prostitution crimes against a woman or child.

In Europe, major football (soccer) matches like the European Championships and the World Cup prompt a similar influx of ‘sex workers’. If the area is not already rife with women willingly (though I use that term loosely) selling themselves, more are bused in. At this summer’s World Cup in South Africa, up to 40,000 prostitutes are estimated to have been in the country to meet demand. Other large sporting events in other countries attract similar problems, I’m sure.

I’m glad that the Texas authorities are concerned about this and that they are being proactive in minimising the amount of trafficking and forced prostitution going on in the days and weeks surrounding the Super Bowl, and I’m glad that they did mention the ‘customers” complicity in crimes being committed against these women and girls, but I’m still not convinced that they are approaching the problem in the right way. Just as with ‘regular’ prostitution, it is almost impossible to deter supply when the demand is so high. Traffickers, pimps and brothel owners will always have jobs as long as men are roaming the streets or banding together in groups to demand sexual services, whether through visual stimulation (like at strip clubs) or sexual contact and intercourse, with women they see as available and willing, even if, in reality, that is not the case.

Surely these men — these middle class, otherwise decent men — know better? Shouldn’t they know somewhere deep down that soliciting sex from prostitutes, girls who may be the same age as their own daughters, is wrong? I don’t believe for a second that their ‘natural urges’ are what drive them to purchase others’ bodies. There is nothing natural about having sex with a child quivering in fear, or a drug-addled, poverty-stricken corner prostitute, or a non-English-speaking woman tied to a filthy mattress in an outbuilding. There is nothing natural about stuffing money into a woman’s underwear while she shakes her breasts and dances on a pole so she can put food on the table for her kids or fund her education.

In short, there is nothing natural about the objectification of women.

It is, however, historical. Prostitution is called the world’s oldest profession not because it is inherent and will never go away, but because since the beginning of recorded history it has been accepted and encouraged in our male-dominated society. While women are oppressed and at an economic disadvantage to men (and make no mistake, they are — even in so-called progressive, industrialised nations), they will continue to use or be forced to use the only currency all of us has: our selves.

So why are we not doing more to target the demand for purchase of others’ bodies? Why are we not coming up with awareness-raising national ad campaigns targeted at the men who buy sex at these sporting events? Instead of lecturing women about the dangers and pitfalls of prostitution, stripping or walking alone at night during these testosterone-fuelled events, why aren’t we punishing and lecturing and scolding the men who take advantage of them? Why are the messages that do exist not getting through?

Sports has long been one of the only culturally acceptable ways in which men can spend time together and socialise outside of work without women present, along with going to the pub. Going to the cinema (unless it’s to see the latest action or sci-fi movie), a restaurant, the park or the town centre for a bit of shopping with another (straight) male friend would be unthinkable or at least uncomfortable for many men. In a group for a special occasion, perhaps. But just one-on-one with another dude, at a nice restaurant? Gay alert! Masculinity malfunction alert! All ego stations manned!

It’s not their fault, really. Just as hetero, middle class women have been conditioned to believe that the path to true sisterhood is paved with shopping trips, gossip, spa days and al fresco lunches, hetero, middle class men have been conditioned to believe that sports, beer, women and technology are the only acceptable ways in which they can socially bond and still be ‘normal’. At any event that is primarily focused on one of these things, the others are bound to be added on. So at a sporting event such as the Super Bowl, it comes as no surprise when beer, women and technology are ladled out like tasty side dishes for consumption with the entrée.

Beer and technology are products and services, that’s fine. Advertise and tout them all you want. But when women are lumped into that category and seen as a given, something sold alongside the team hats and hamburgers, that’s when the long shadow of the dark side of sports comes marching on the field.

And how is the idea that women are for sale being reinforced? Why, with all of the busty beauties and lovely ladies appearing in the ads selling the beer and the technology. You can’t watch a Super Bowl and its renowned halftime ads without seeing dozens of breasts, bums, bikinis and come-hither looks (from the cheerleaders and the women on TV), inviting the men to check out their goods while they think about buying some others.

Taken in isolation, of course these ads are not single-handedly responsible for the objectification of women. But it’s an example of the culmination of the drip-drip effect, being constantly fed in tiny, everyday increments to men and boys (and women and girls) across the nation and across the world.

Figuring out how to impede traffickers, while important, should not be the main concern of the officials in Texas, or anyone else concerned with stopping these crimes. It all begins — has always begun — with the idea that women are less-than, that we are subservient beings with no sexuality of our own besides the kind that satisfies or complements men’s.

Want to stop trafficking? Start with the beer commercials.
Image credit

Anti-bullying campaigns: why not for rape?

Fertile Fem — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:49:13 +0000

Anti-bullying campaigns are getting quite a lot of attention lately, aren’t they? We’ve got schools, teachers, parents and children involved, focused on combating everything from hurtful whispers in the hallways to aggressive, homophobic taunts.

After decades of accepting that bullying was an inevitable (albeit unfortunate) part of life and directing our energies to helping our kids avoid or minimise it, we’ve slowly but surely started changing the way we view it. Suddenly, most of the focus is on the bullies, not the bullied. Instead of list after list of tips for how parents can help their sons and daughter cope with bullying (whether by ignoring it, fighting back or avoiding the situation altogether), our attention has finally (and rightfully) shifted to those perpetrating these hurtful attacks. Parents are monitoring their children(and others) more carefully for signs of bullying behaviour and talking to them about why it’s not okay to humiliate, terrorise or harm their peers. Suddenly, the bullied child is no longer an object of ridicule and derision but sympathy and solidarity.

It used to be that we thought of bullying victims as weak or somehow deserving of the misery being heaped upon them. Now, we see that the real fault lies with those who feel so entitled and superior (but who are really just looking to boost their own flagging self-esteem with the only means of power they have) that they take pleasure in eliciting fear and self-loathing in others.

Bullies are not necessarily bad people — some of them will feel remorse for their actions at some point in their lives. Some may not even realise that what they were doing was anything other than ‘harmless fun’ or ‘what kids do.’ That’s because they’ve grown up with a family or a culture that made it acceptable, even desirable. Phrases like ‘pecking order’ and ‘only the strong survive’ and ‘top of the food chain’ and ‘alpha dog’ have become so common in our lexicon, is it any wonder that children get the idea that might is right?

I’m glad that the focus is changing. I’m glad that we’re beginning to see just how harmful bullying is, and what a negative impact it has on people’s feelings of self-worth, safety and justice. I’m glad that parents are talking to their children about why it’s not okay to participate in bullying.

So why can’t we do the same for rape?

If you Google ‘stop bullying and bullies’, you get page after page of anti-bullying websites, networks, campaigns and articles aimed at parents on how to talk to their children (both the bullied and the bullies) about peer harassment. If you Google ‘stop rapists and rape’, you get a lot of articles and news stories telling women how they can prevent themselves from being raped or sexually assaulted. The focus is almost exclusively on the victims, with nary a mention of the perpetrators of these crimes. There is little in the way of how to talk to your son about not raping anyone (woman, man or child) and how to challenge the existing rape culture.

We’ve managed to turn our previously-held notions about bullying on their head and place the blame where it belongs. Isn’t it about time we did the same for rape?

Birth rape: I’ll say it again

Fertile Fem — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 21:25:00 +0000

Writing about birth rape in March 2008 for feminist webzine The F-Word is what led me to birth advocacy and, eventually, becoming a birth doula. I am passionate about birth and making it a better, more empowering experience for all mothers, not just those who get ‘lucky’ and have straightforward labours or respectful attendants.

So it was with deep disappointment and even anger that I read piece after piece after piece arguing with, dismissing and even ridiculing the women who have chosen to use this term, some of the authors quoting my original story. In response, I have written another feature for The F-Word, which you can read here.

Luckily, at least one other feminist blogger agrees with me and has stood up for the victims of this heinous crime. I find it incredibly sad that so many others don’t.

Image credit

The psychology of motherhood: nature or nurture?

Fertile Fem — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 12:51:00 +0000

As someone who firmly believes that many of the alleged psychological differences between the male and female sexes can be attributed to cultural reinforcement of popular myth, bad or ethically-questionable science and a healthy dose of plain ol’ sexism, it’s hardly surprising that I am instinctually repelled by claims that girls are ‘hard-wired’ to like pink things and be terrible drivers or that pregnant women and new mothers have diminished mental capacity and memory, otherwise known as ‘baby brain’.

On the other hand, as an advocate for mothers and someone who acknowledges and has experienced first-hand the powerful effect of hormonal changes on a woman’s mind and body, I do not deny that biology and its many processes may play a role in shaping who we are and how we live.

But just how much credence should we give to the idea that having children brings with it an overwhelming and inevitable shift in how we think? Is the psychology of motherhood subconsciously learned and culturally-ingrained or is it simply a case of biological design, wherein mothers are destined to expend more brain power on their offspring than on themselves or the world around them? Is ‘baby brain’ part of human evolution or a convenient theory to explain why women still undertake the psychological burden of parenthood, making them supposedly more naturally suited to be caretakers than professionals?

If you ask a group of mothers whether they felt less sharp or had bad memories while pregnant and within the first several months of each of their children’s lives, many will answer with a resounding ‘Yes!’ Anecdote after anecdote about forgetting a phone number known for decades or struggling to remember what that large rectangular thing in the kitchen that chills the perishable food is called soon follow. Mothers who work outside the home also sometimes report not being able to focus on their jobs because they are so busy thinking of and organising all the many things that need doing in relation to the household and children.

While I’m sure these things are true and that many women do indeed experience some element of memory loss in pregnancy and in the early years of parenting, I have to wonder if there isn’t another (series of) explanation(s) other than a decrease in mental acuity. After all, some women report not experiencing this phenomenon at all.

So is ‘baby brain’ just a stereotype perpetuated to remind women that their focus should be on their foetus or child, or an inescapable truism? Let’s look at the evidence.

First, there’s a question of whether our brains literally shrink during pregnancy. According to this news report and associated study (though a very small one, with only 9 participants), the late stage of pregnancy does seem to cause individual brain cells to decrease in volume, though not in quantity. One theory is that this may be because the body is busy pumping extra blood and other fluids around the body and to the foetus and the associated reproductive organs. Another study found that pregnancy “adversely affects ability to recall previously seen spatial locations” due to hormonal changes and concludes that pregnant women will likely have diminished capacity to perform certain cognitive tasks because of said changes.

However, this does not necessarily explain anecdotal reporting of memory loss or lack of focus. The authors of the above studies themselves conclude that their findings are speculative and the sample sizes were very small.

A much larger, more comprehensive study performed in Australia earlier this year concluded — after studying 1,241 women both before and after they had children (and comparing them to those who never had children at all) — that having a baby does not adversely affect memory or cognitive abilities. The head researcher said:

“Part of the problem is that pregnancy manuals tell women they are likely to experience memory and concentration problems — so women and their partners are primed to attribute any memory lapse to the ‘hard to miss’ physical sign of pregnancy.

Pregnant women may also shift their focus away from work issues to help them prepare for the birth of their new baby, while new mothers selectively attend to their baby.

But she said this shift should not be labelled a ‘cognitive deficit.’”

In the same article, a senior midwife notes that the physical and emotional stresses of pregnancy, coupled with lack of sleep and the shock of a major life change, are the more likely explanations for any reported memory lapses or concentration difficulties.

Moving on from pregnancy, we have also generally accepted the idea that women’s abilities for systematization and concentration decrease (even if only marginally) in the months and years after birth. Couple this with the oft-spouted stereotype that women are hard-wired for empathy and we go from the idea of a brain-addled new mummy as dubious myth to a widely accepted cultural norm, in the form of ‘Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus’, et al.

Dr. Cordelia Fine, a cognitive neuroscientist and author of “Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society and Neurosexism Create Difference,” hits back at what she believes is the perpetuation of old sexism with new science. Dr. Fine attributes many of the studies’ stated outcomes to researchers using their own biases and belief in gender differences to influence not only the way the studies are conducted but how they are written. Knowing that the media do not generally dissect scientific studies at their core and instead take the best ‘plain English’ tidbits to create sensational headlines, some of these studies authors may be (wittingly or unwittingly) contributing to the idea that men’s and women’s differences can be explained by nature, not nurture.

In this New York Times review of Dr. Fine’s book, we see previous examples of biological differences used as rationale for all sorts of discrimination against women.

Experts used to attribute gender inequality to the “delicacy of the brain fibers” in women ; then to the smaller dimensions of the female brain (the “missing five ounces,” the Victorians called it); then to the ratio of skull length to skull breadth. In 1915 the neurologist Dr. Charles L. Dana wrote in this newspaper that because a woman’s upper spinal cord is smaller than a man’s it affects women’s “efficiency” in the evaluation of “political initiative or of judicial authority in a community’s organization” — and thus compromises their ability to vote.

Dr. Fine also examines the popular opinion that new mothers are ill-suited to return to work full-time and, if they do, how challenging they find it due to their hearts and minds remaining firmly in the home, even when they are at work. Her article in Neuroethics magazine, entitled “Will Working Mothers’ Brains Explode? The Popular New Genre of Neurosexism” is a must read for those interested in or concerned with the way women’s abilities are viewed upon returning to work after having a child.

So if we know that science is not always reliable and is, indeed, subject to societal influence, how do we know which studies to trust and which to throw out with the bathwater? When can we be sure that a woman self-reporting memory loss and a general feeling of being ‘a bit stupid’ is a neurological truth instead of an internalised stereotype?

The short answer is that we don’t and we can’t. If someone’s experience confirms previously-held views or theories, they will be hard-pressed to view it any other way. The longer answer is that we have to scrutinise these studies before accepting them as fact and learn to examine not only the source of the study and the possible motivations behind it, but what personal prejudices may influence the outcome. We must also question the use of anecdotes (even when they are numerous) that fly in the face of evidence-based research.

Having said that, I am not a proponent of telling other women how to rationalise their experiences or how to feel their feelings. If a woman thinks she’s hard-wired to look after her baby and to put the milk in the cupboard instead of the fridge when she is expecting, that is her truth and her prerogative. Likewise, I wouldn’t discount a woman who insisted she had zero cognitive dissipation and zero doubts about her abilities to perform her job or other duties just as well after she’s had children as she did before.

In my view, the prevailing idea of ‘baby brain’ is likely a combination of factors, some biological but mostly cultural. I’ll likely never know for sure if I’m right or not, as when it comes to nature versus nurture there are no cut-and-dried answers.

So what do you think? Or have you forgotten what we were talking about?

Photo credit

A depressing work of staggering ignorance

Fertile Fem — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 15:33:19 +0000

Oh, the epic screed I could write about this article in the New York Times.

First, the good news: a major newspaper put an article about mothers in the workforce in the Economy section, not Life & Style or the Moms Like Me! section, where most news items about women go to die.

But before David Leonhardt and his sub-editors go patting themselves on the back too hard, I’d like to point out the major flaws in the story. Lord knows I’d like to point out all the minor ones too, but I haven’t got time for that tedious process today.

First, Leonhardt assumes that the three female Supreme Court nominees he holds up as examples of women being forced to choose between family and career actually wanted children. Unless he’s been privy to private conversations with these women on their reproductive choices, I’m afraid this is what one would call Lazy Journalism. Man, I hate that! It’s why I decided against a full-on career in journalism in the end — I’m way too slothful for all that fact-finding and high-energy truthfulness. But at $2 a pop, I expect the New York Times to put down its $4 single scoop of ice cream, get up off the sofa and actually, I don’t know, write articles based on something besides gender stereotypes. Is it just me?

Anyway.

Here’s where Leonhardt’s article simultaneously caught my attention and pissed me off: the ol’ It’s All Feminism’s Fault™ trick, number 323,982 in an infinite series.

The fact that the job market has evolved in this way is no accident. It’s a result of policy choices. As Jane Waldfogel, a Columbia University professor who studies families and work, says, “American feminists made a conscious choice to emphasize equal rights and equal opportunities, but not to talk about policies that would address family responsibilities.”

In many ways, the choice was shrewd. The feminist movement has been fabulously successful fighting for antidiscrimination laws that require men and women to be treated equally. These laws have not eliminated the blatant sexism of past decades — think “Mad Men” — but they have beaten back much of it.

As a result, outright sexism is no longer the main barrier to gender equality. The main barrier is the harsh price most workers pay for pursuing anything other than the old-fashioned career path.“Women do almost as well as men today,” Ms. Waldfogel said, “as long as they don’t have children.”

Did you hear that, “shrewd” feminists of yore? You screwed up because when you demanded equality in the workplace, you didn’t also make the correct “policy choices” to ensure that mothers wouldn’t get the shaft. IT’S ALL YOUR FAULT!

Wait, what? You say that you weren’t in positions of power to make economic or social policies and that you did talk about these issues but were summarily ignored before resentfully being given the crappiest office in the building when you, as a senior manager, were finally removed from the typing pool where The Girls all sat? I think we all know that was a conscious choice on your part, Janet. [Note: Janet is the name of the 2nd wave feminist who participates in technically fictional but historically accurate role play situations in my head]

And was there any mention of the role men and their hundreds-years-old policies have played in women’s inability to break the glass ceiling? Was there anything in there about how if fathers took on more of the childcare and housework, women would be less likely to be pushed out of the labor force in staggering numbers? Was there even a smattering of meaningful analysis of gender roles, social pressure, paltry maternity leave, patriarchal attitudes and, yes, good ol’ workplace sexism?

Oh Janet, you were always a dreamer, weren’t you! I think it’s cute.

Photo credit

Risk vs. rights: the home birth debate

Fertile Fem — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:12:15 +0000

On the BBC News website today, we learn that British medical journal The Lancet has published an article declaring home births “too risky” for infants and stating that, even though giving birth at home is associated with fewer risks for the mother (“shorter recovery time and fewer lacerations, post-partum haemorrhages, retained placentae and infections”) women should “not have the right to put their baby at risk.”

Well. Ain’t that sweet? It’s as if the women’s rights movement never happened! We are but pods, oh masterful overlords. Guide us in your infinite wisdom so that we may bear unto you the fruit of our wombs, and happily give of ourselves all that will never be granted us in return. Ommm.

But wait, hasn’t planned home birth been found to be just as safe as hospital birth for low-risk women? Yes. Yes it has. But that doesn’t matter because The Lancet has an explanation for those faulty data.

Data also frequently include misclassified cases, since studies usually look at newborn outcomes in relation to the actual rather than planned delivery location…Most studies also rely on different midwifery models for home delivery, which are not generalisable.”

Not generalisable? You mean like the different midwifery models and health care systems used (but not controlled for) in the AJOG study upon which The Lancet is basing its opinion? Comparing home birth in the UK (where trained midwives attend around 90% of births and where there is a free-at-the-point-of-use national health care system) with home birth in the US — where only 8% of births are attended by midwives (some of whom are not certified) and where affordable, accessible antenatal care is not always easy to come by — is like looking at apples and oranges and declaring them the same because they are round.

Putting aside the fact that the AJOG study conflates outcomes unique to significantly different countries with a cohesive, well-rounded, controlled study of planned home birth in nations under similar health care systems, there remains a big problem with any argument that gives ultimate authority to someone other than the mother: human rights. If you believe that all decisions about a competent person’s care should remain with the individual in question and that patients, no matter their ‘ailment’, have the right to take advice into consideration but ultimately reject it, without threat of censure if the desirable outcome does not materialise, then you can’t very well say that women, even those considered high risk, are ‘not allowed’ to opt for a home birth.

The reasons for this are two-fold: one, because the definition of ‘high risk’ is subjective and varies greatly from one trust, hospital and health care provider to another. Some women are told they are high risk because they are obese, or over 35, or because they had a previous caesarean section. Hell, my friend was told she was an unsuitable candidate for a home birth because there was limited parking nearby and her rug wasn’t washable! If parking spots and interior furnishings are enough to deny a woman her right to choose, what would become of those in more ‘sinister’ predicaments, like being old or fat? The concern is that maternity units will begin labelling otherwise healthy women as ‘high risk’ (even if they’re not) and refusing them home births due to their own staffing problems, convenience or biases. It already happens all the time (“If it’s a busy night you’ll have to come into hospital, dear”) so without an NHS-wide list of which conditions and situations would contraindicate a home birth, each woman desiring one would have to hope against hope that she was being correctly assessed by an objective, patient-centred, evidence-based, fully-staffed maternity service which, at the moment, the UK does not have.

Secondly, all of this is beside the point! Even if a woman was pretty unquestionably high-risk and would statistically be safer in hospital, it would be a violation of her autonomy, agency and, yes, her human rights, to be forcibly hospitalised for observation and interventions which she may not have consented to, ‘for the sake of the baby’. Take all of the arguments for being pro-choice and apply them here — until a baby is independent of its mother’s body, it is a woman’s choice what she does with it (and where and with whom).

The vast majority of births proceed normally (or would do if they weren’t interfered with) and need little medical assistance. Many births that would have been fine on their own are tinkered with, sped up or subject to impersonal, litigation-wary hospital policy, creating their own set of complications and crises. Some women, even if they don’t need or make use of the medical assistance, are comforted by having it on stand-by. That is how our current culture frames birth; Better safe than sorry! Just in case!

But some women feel much safer and at ease in their own environment, at home, and believe in their body’s ability to give birth. Punishing mothers for doing what is best for them on the minuscule off-chance of untreatable catastrophe for the baby is akin to berating a parent whose child choked to death on a piece of food while she was at work for leaving him with a trusted care provider who didn’t also happen to be a paediatric surgeon or emergency medical respondent.

Things happen. Tragedy happens. People die, including babies. It’s always horrible. It’s always sad. Sometimes it is preventable, sometimes it isn’t. And some people will never understand even considering taking that risk, no matter how small. I get that. It’s a visceral, emotional reaction to the cultural narrative we’ve become woven into; of harm reduction at all costs, of no child left behind and one loss being one too many.

But the thing is, there is ALWAYS a chance of complications, no matter which setting you choose. Women die in hospitals during or immediately after childbirth all the time, from haemorrhaging, fatal clots (often incurred after caesarean surgery) , infections (often acquired in hospital) or human error. In cases where a woman, or her baby, would have lived if they hadn’t been in hospital — if she hadn’t had the induction that led to the caesarean that led to the her fatal embolism or the baby’s respiratory failure — do we blame them? Do we ban hospital birth and say it’s risky? No. Because ALL birth carries some element of risk. Giving birth is giving life, and life comes with risk. Are we really so terrified of mortality, or so arrogant, as to think we can eliminate it completely?

Ensuring that pregnant women have all of the information and support they need to make the decision best for THEM (not some patronising attempt to strong-arm, scaremonger or strip them of their rights and give them to people who ‘know better’) — and then trusting and respecting that decision — is the only acceptable position on this, as far as I’m concerned.

And I am concerned. I’m very concerned about what this means for pregnant women’s rights. Are you?

The cleaner, the baker, the child care-taker

Fertile Fem — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:23:46 +0000

We pay a lot of lip service to those who work with children, don’t we? Moulding young minds, shaping the future, the most difficult (but rewarding!) job in the world (after motherhood, of course)…blah, blah, blah. Yes, so rewarding and important and indispensable that we can justify paying teachers, and particularly early years child care workers, a pittance. Some argue that teachers have shorter days and a shorter working year than most, with more holidays and job security. Therefore, they don’t need/deserve as much. Some people, like a man on BBC London’s call-in radio show this morning, say teachers aren’t paid that well, no, but they can take on extra jobs after school hours and in the summer holidays to supplement their incomes.

Correction: male teachers, the currently able-bodied and well-connected, and those without school-age children can take on temporary, part-time jobs as it suits their schedule (but only if they can find one — they’ll be in fierce competition with teens looking for summer jobs and the unskilled unemployed during a recession). Many teachers, however, are women with school-age children themselves and who are the primary carers, or primary child care arrangers, for their families. If a teacher is not teaching, her children aren’t in school either. What, pray tell, would this male caller propose she do with her children while she shuffles off to a part-time job, perhaps in retail, caring or tutoring, one that is unlikely to even cover the costs of paying someone to look after them? I’m guessing the caller’s wife took care of all that, leaving him free to take on the building and courier jobs that supplemented his below-average income. Well bully for him. Must be nice living in a bubble of privilege where child care is sourced and performed by the Child Care Faeries.

But ‘regular’ teachers’ pay isn’t even the issue here. The actual topic of discussion on this radio show was whether it was fair for a head teacher of a state school in Lonodn, which is publicly funded, to be earning more than £230,000 a year while the teachers themselves faced pay freezes under new government budget slashing, and the cleaners at the same school earn £10,000 per year, which is not even a living wage. Many callers thought he earned this high salary because, at the end of the day (the most overused expression in Britain), he takes full responsibility for the school’s performance. Oh, the weight on his shoulders is heavy alright — earning 20 times as much as some of your staff must be quite a gold-plated burden indeed. Pulling up in the Jag, sliding into that Reserved spot, clutching your lambskin briefcase and Starbucks coffee as you wave to the cleaning crew straggling in off the public buses after being up since 5am getting their own children dressed, fed and off to school across town before coming into work to mop floors and scrub toilets for below the minimum wage…what a chore! So worth the ridiculous salary, that.

As is often the case, even in female-dominated sectors like schools, the people at the top get all the credit and pay with little regard for the machine, as it were, as a whole. Instead of looking at employment structure as a pyramid, with one person on top and the rest of the underlings trickling down en masse, it would be helpful to consider it as a cog with interlocking teeth. All the parts have to work perfectly and in harmony to make things run smoothly. If even one small bit breaks down, the whole machine comes grinding to a halt. That includes the cleaners, cooks and teaching assistants at a school.

But after all, as one caller said, pushing a mop around or serving spaghetti isn’t exactly rocket science. Neither is changing nappies, caring for babies or running a pre-school, apparently. It’s not until you get to the prestigious job of shaping those young minds and filling them with information (or propaganda and biases, if you’re not a fan of education with a capital E) that it becomes real work worthy of a high salary and oodles of respect. Funnily enough, these top jobs are more often than not filled by men, even though the vast majority of those working within the state school system are women. Why might that be? Let me scratch my chin for a bit here. I’m thinking it starts with P and ends in -archy.

It’s the same reason why women are cooks but men are chefs. It’s why stay-at-home mums aren’t given a second thought but stay-at-home dads are fawned over and patted on the back. It’s why even in mummy blogging, dads come out top. It’s why men working in unskilled jobs (grave diggers, bin men, street cleaners, etc..) for Birmingham Council were given ‘bonuses’ to supplement their paltry base pay while women working similarly-skilled jobs (cleaners, teaching assistants, carers, etc..) were kept in the dark about this practice and remained on the base salary.

Until roles traditionally performed by women are given the respect and remuneration they deserve and until our disgusting, capitalist ‘winner takes all’ system is turned on its head or gotten rid of altogether, we will continue to see men in tweed jackets and business suits growing rich and fat on the backs of women, the poor and the disadvantaged.

Image credit