Pregnant women are public property
So, I've ben hanging out with a lot of pregnant ladies lately, and I wanted to start a thread about how as soon as the writ is dropped, so to speak, that woman's belly, eating and drinking habits, and general behaviour falls under the jurisdiction of, well, anyone. Complete strangers come up and ask you questions about your due date and rub your belly uninvited. Then of course, there are the lectures: an acquaintance of mine was questioned at work for drinking a cup of coffee, and then told (by a childless man) "I'm just thinking about the baby." A friend of mine who works at a bistro said that a co-worker of hers refused to serve an alcoholic drink to a pregnant lady because she "didn't feel right about it."
While I'm interested in talking about the vomit-inducing paternalism and judgement pregancy invites (or at least venting about it), I'm also interested in ways we could possibly recuperate and embrace this public-ness: for example, pregnant women are also the recipient of smiles when they walk around in public, which I think is a positive expression of sociality and pregnancy--in the kind of way that the child will be a product of his or her society as well.
Thoughts? Experiences to share? Belly photos?
Certainly pregnant women should take care of themselves to the best of their ability considering that there is another human life involved, and all pregnant women should have support available to help them towards this end. On the issue of drinking while pregnant, certainly that is not a good idea. In Manitoba, the Manitoba Liquor Control Comission a few years ago promoted the idea that men should support the pregnant women in their lives by abstaining from alcohol as well.
On the whole asking questions about the due date or feeling a woman's stomach uninvited, I wonder what people are thinking? Much as my 3D social skills are not always optimal, I would never dream of doing that to a pregnant women, not necessarily because of any "feminist" reasons, but out of basic respect for personal boundaries. As for support and solidaritiy? How about actions like holding a door open or offering help to carry the groceries?
Ok speaking of touchy topic that one hit the mark.
First i see two opposing right.
First the right of the women of disposing of her body.
Second the right of the feotus to get the best chance to be a healthy baby after her/
his birth
One thing to consider is a jugement of suprime courts that state. That a feotus is not yet a Human being.
on the other hand the jugement was deliver in case of Abortion were the feotus will never reach Birth.
But in case of drinking alcool or taking drug while being pregnant, should we consider the right of the futur human being?
Delicate question, with no easy answer!
Indeed. That is to say, the answer is clear, but far from easy.
If a woman wants to drink coffee, alcohol or laudnum during her pregnancy, that is her decision. If she wants to smoke cigarettes, marijuana or crack, that is her decision. If she wants to eat TV dinners, porterhouse steaks or nothing, that, too, is her decision. Any other way to say it--whether couching it in an ethical dilemma or references to jurisprudence--smacks of judgement, paternalism and sexism. If a pregnant woman comes into your bar and orders a glass of wine, serve her FFS!
Well said, Catchfire.
Great thread idea, Catchfire.
Hopefully some women will post, if they feel inclined. I just took a look at the Active Topics and I'm didn't see any women listed in the top half. :(
Is it really that simple, especially when there is the potential health of a child involved? I'm not advocating that pregnant women be denied any choices, but how is advising women about the things they need to do to have a healthy pregnancy and give her child the best possible start any different from giving other health advice? If I was in the situation of having a pregnant partner, I would certainly encourage her to take care of herself and to support her wherever she needed, especially since it's not just her health but the health of my child that would be at stake. You'll also note that in my first post to this thread I implied that men should modify their behaviours during their partner's pregnancy (specifically around smoking, drinking, or doing other drugs). How is a pregnant woman supposed to feel if she's told what she can and can't do while pregnant while seeing her friends and her partner engage in that "forbidden" behaviour?
Finally, I would also like to hear from women on this topic, and I find it a bit rich that a man would claim authority to say that something "smacks of judgement, paternalism, and sexism."
Is it really that simple, especially when there is the potential health of a child involved? I'm not advocating that pregnant women be denied any choices, but how is advising women about the things they need to do to have a healthy pregnancy and give her child the best possible start any different from giving other health advice? If I was in the situation of having a pregnant partner, I would certainly encourage her to take care of herself and to support her wherever she needed, especially since it's not just her health but the health of my child that would be at stake. You'll also note that in my first post to this thread I implied that men should modify their behaviours during their partner's pregnancy (specifically around smoking, drinking, or doing other drugs). How is a pregnant woman supposed to feel if she's told what she can and can't do while pregnant while seeing her friends and her partner engage in that "forbidden" behaviour?
Finally, I would also like to hear from women on this topic, and I find it a bit rich that a man would claim authority to say that something "smacks of judgement, paternalism, and sexism."
I had to walk away from this thread so I wouldn't post in CAPS.
I agree 100% with Catchfire and I'm so glad he stated it. A24, your comments are sentimental at best with all your references to "the baby". It is a fetus until birth and it's up to the individual woman to decide if she even likes having people refer to her pregnant self as "mother and baby". The rest of your concern is patriarchal and condescending. The wee little woman might be led astray if her partner doesn't set up a good example or constantly clamour over her every choice to ensure she's doing what's best for "the baby".
Every woman deals with pregnancy as she chooses. Maybe some women like people, even strangers, fawning all over them - and patting their belly. Most that I have known do not. And many more I know do not appreciate condescending advice or judgemental attitudes. Even-handed advice should be provided by health professionals or anyone a pregnant woman choses to confide in.
What is happening in the US is alarming. The fetus fetishists have taken "concern for the baby" to whole new level of oppression:
Rennie Gibbs is accused of murder, but the crime she is alleged to have committed does not sound like an ordinary killing. Yet she faces life in prison in Mississippi over the death of her unborn child.
Gibbs became pregnant aged 15, but lost the baby in December 2006 in a stillbirth when she was 36 weeks into the pregnancy. When prosecutors discovered that she had a cocaine habit – though there is no evidence that drug abuse had anything to do with the baby's death – they charged her with the "depraved-heart murder" of her child, which carries a mandatory life sentence.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murde...
That's not how that post was intended. Most of the messages around pregnancy focus on what the woman is supposed to do, and there is rarely anything directed at friends or partners telling them how to support the pregnant women in their lives. It's not a matter of anyone being "led astray." I'll phrase this another way: if a woman is pregnant and is told what she shouldn't do while pregnant, and her male partner continues to smoke, drink, do drugs, or what have you, does that sound to you like someone who is being a supportive partner?
Read my first post to this thread. I advocated that people keep their hands to themselves.
Agreed, and those health services should be readily available.
You're not a women, so who are you to speak on their behalf and tell me what is "patriarchal and condescending?"
Er, yes she is, Aristotled.
Can I suggest not taking this personally? It's not whether you are right or wrong, it's about how your words are being interpreted by those whose lived experience you are describing. I can say that my [pregnant] partner reacted to your first post in this thread rather angrily. Again: don't take it personally.
Like wz, I also hope some more women will post in this thread if they get the urge.
Er, yes she is, Aristotled.
My mistake. Sorry, laine.
I also hope more women will post in this thread.
Personally I can't imagine serving an obviously pregnant woman an alcoholic beverage.
Let turn the question for a bit.
New questions is: Is there enougth case of alcoolic and toxicomania during pregnancy to launch as side by side prevention programs or a program that aim only people who already suffer from toxicomania and alcoolism
or no prevention at all.
An other question is a child born with handicap because of toxicomania during pregancy is able to pursuit her mother in court for the prejudist that he suffer now!
Is it really that simple, especially when there is the potential health of a child involved? I'm not advocating that pregnant women be denied any choices, but how is advising women about the things they need to do to have a healthy pregnancy and give her child the best possible start any different from giving other health advice? If I was in the situation of having a pregnant partner, I would certainly encourage her to take care of herself and to support her wherever she needed, especially since it's not just her health but the health of my child that would be at stake. You'll also note that in my first post to this thread I implied that men should modify their behaviours during their partner's pregnancy (specifically around smoking, drinking, or doing other drugs). How is a pregnant woman supposed to feel if she's told what she can and can't do while pregnant while seeing her friends and her partner engage in that "forbidden" behaviour?
Finally, I would also like to hear from women on this topic, and I find it a bit rich that a man would claim authority to say that something "smacks of judgement, paternalism, and sexism."
I had to walk away from this thread so I wouldn't post in CAPS.
I agree 100% with Catchfire and I'm so glad he stated it. A24, your comments are sentimental at best with all your references to "the baby". It is a fetus until birth and it's up to the individual woman to decide if she even likes having people refer to her pregnant self as "mother and baby". The rest of your concern is patriarchal and condescending. The wee little woman might be led astray if her partner doesn't set up a good example or constantly clamour over her every choice to ensure she's doing what's best for "the baby".
Every woman deals with pregnancy as she chooses. Maybe some women like people, even strangers, fawning all over them - and patting their belly. Most that I have known do not. And many more I know do not appreciate condescending advice or judgemental attitudes. Even-handed advice should be provided by health professionals or anyone a pregnant woman choses to confide in.
What is happening in the US is alarming. The fetus fetishists have taken "concern for the baby" to whole new level of oppression:
Rennie Gibbs is accused of murder, but the crime she is alleged to have committed does not sound like an ordinary killing. Yet she faces life in prison in Mississippi over the death of her unborn child.
Gibbs became pregnant aged 15, but lost the baby in December 2006 in a stillbirth when she was 36 weeks into the pregnancy. When prosecutors discovered that she had a cocaine habit – though there is no evidence that drug abuse had anything to do with the baby's death – they charged her with the "depraved-heart murder" of her child, which carries a mandatory life sentence.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murde...
The case you present is rather extreme, i doute this is representative of reality!
Normaly i'm a pro choix but in this case the fact that unlike abortion the fetus is able to be an human being someday change everything !
If a woman wants to drink coffee, alcohol or laudnum during her pregnancy, that is her decision. If she wants to smoke cigarettes, marijuana or crack, that is her decision. If she wants to eat TV dinners, porterhouse steaks or nothing, that, too, is her decision. Any other way to say it--whether couching it in an ethical dilemma or references to jurisprudence--smacks of judgement, paternalism and sexism. If a pregnant woman comes into your bar and orders a glass of wine, serve her FFS!
The problem that i got, is there is somebody else who will suffer later. If it where only the women, it will be no prob do what you want. Who get with end result do matter.
Like i said there is no easy answer!
At least if she doesn't want to stop while pregnancy get abortion!
I'll try approaching this from a different angle. Health professionals will advise pregnant women to change behaviours such as asking them to stop drinking or smoking while pregnant. So taking this further, would her partner's decision to change his habits or not have any impact on how supported she feels? How does the behaviour of a pregnant woman's partner impact her?
Here's a little miscommunication I hope to clear up:
I'm baffled that people think it's acceptable to touch the stomach of a pregnant woman. Why do people think that's acceptable? As a child, I was taught to respect personal space and keep my hands to myself. Seems pretty simple, why doesn't anyone get it? (I firmly believe in the "hands to yourself" rule, I hope nothing I said gave a different impression.)
I'd also like to ask, is it generally men or women who tend to feel it acceptable to touch the stomach of a pregnant woman?
I'd like to ask why lafauve gets to spew this anti-woman crap in here.
How did this thread turn into another ridiculous thread about abortion?
And, what Stargazer said.
My thoughts, as a woman who's never-been-pregnant-and-never-will-be, around the "not serving alcohol" crap, is that most women don't "show" for the first 3 months. So it's only because her body is "obviously" pregnant that makes her a fair target to be refused a drink? WhatEVER.
Are people aware that the first trimester is when most of the basic growth and development occurs (GIYF) and is the most sensitive time in terms of "bad" ingestion habits of the eating, drinking and inhaling kind? And that sometimes women don't even know they're pregnant until 6 weeks or more? ie, half of this time period? Let's do the math here.
My dad smoked two packs a day his entire life, including during my non-smoking mother's three pregnancies. Where's the blame and shame towards him and other fathers/partners who do that? Hell, what about pollution in the city (the argument often used by smokers) and its effect on pregnant women, and non-pregnant women and men and children? Don't make me go down the slippery slope, just don't do it!
As for the touching bullshit, my off-the-top-of-my-head feminist thoughts on that are a combination of two things. First, sexism. Women are often "touched" by people: co-workers, supervisors, strangers, etc, in non-sexual ways. This is so normalized most of us may not even notice it. Our bodies in general are public bodies, and this perhaps increases during pregnancy.
Then there's the issue of what our bodies look like and how everyone, men and women, has the right to make comments about our bodies (both verbal and not), and pass judgement about our bodies (both verbal and not). Another sexist piece is the "woman as mother" trope, in which the thought is that all women must be mothers to fulfill our biological whatever-the-fuck.
My second thought is the generic and mainstream fetus-fetish ideas our society has about pregnant women and babies. But only if those women are white and middle class, with their babies presumed to be as well.
I haven't posted in awhile, I've been mostly lurking, but I thought I would jump into this topic. I have a 14 mo. old, so I have been relatively recently pregnant (and hope to be again relatively soon).
I absolutely hated the unsolicited belly touching! It seemed all the people in my life that I did not mind touching my belly and feeling my baby kick always asked very politely, or would be too shy to ask and I would ask them. But strangers or somewhat acquaintances...they would just put their hands out for a feel. I did speak up a few times, but when you are extra tired and it happens so much you just get sick of always saying this. When I did speak up, the response always tried to make ME feel like I was overreacting. Eventually I found the best response was to ask what they would they think if a stranger just walked up and touched their belly. (and note: depending on how you carry, it is really more like your abdomen which is even more offensive).
Anyways, in terms of telling women what to do when pregnant health-wise, I have a great story. A friend of mine had discussed caffeine with her doctor and he agreed that one coffee every morning was ok. This one co-worker (who was quite obese) always made a comment. So, one day she said "when are you going to start losing weight?"
In terms of restaurants and bars, a woman has a right to be served whatever she orders whether pregnant or not. To use the obese example, you aren't allowed to refuse to serve someone french fries are you? There was an issue in Manitoba we studied in social work school of a pregnant drug addict. She was basically taken in to mental health custody for detox against her will by child welfare authorities. This went all the way to the courts, where the ruling was no such right exists. There is no person/child until the first breath at birth. Based on all the evidence, child welfare authorities can apprehend at that time, and yes the child may be born addicted or have FASD, but there is no right to infring on the woman's rights.
Here is a link referring to the Manitoba case (the only one I could find with a good description):
In August of 1997, a pregnant Manitoba
woman was brought to court by the Winnipeg
Family and Child Services on the basis that two
out of her three children suffered brain damage
due to her various addictions (solvent sniffing:
glue, nail polish remover, and paint thinner).
Child services maintained that the twenty-two
year old aboriginal woman should be forced into
therapy, as her drug dependency was harming her
fetus. By the time the courts had made the
decision to pass this onto the Supreme Court, the
baby had already been born. By October of that
same year, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled
that "the courts cannot force a pregnant woman to
undergo treatment to prevent harm to her fetus".
The Court reaffirms that "a fetus does not have
legal rights".2 Essentially, Canadian law dictates a
person has full autonomy over his/her body and
his life, thus including the justification of suicide.
This law is not surprising, because if the
unborn baby was a legal entity, then voluntary
termination of pregnancy would need to be
classified as manslaughter or even murder.
Great post, thanks Ghislaine. And yes, can we please drop the odious abortion talk?
Ghislaine, my partner is pregnant and she had a woman walk up and ask the usual questions: oh, when are you due, etc. When my partner said 36 weeks, the woman responded with a concerned/appraising look: "Hrmmm. Well, you haven't dropped yet..."
The sanitized response of Ms. CF was it's none of your geedee business what my uterus is or isn't doing.
Maybe Ms. CF should start babbling. She'd fit right in around here.
Ha, congratulations to you both Cathfire! Can I offer some unsolicited advised to your partner that a naturopath gave me? Evening primrose oil gelcaps after 38 weeks. Absolutely wonderful results for all of this doctor's clients in a certain area.
I'm a first time babbler so go easy on me! As I am almost 37 weeks pregnant (and CF's partner), this thread hits kinda close to home.
The issue with uninvited comments about what I consume is that the commentator assumes they care and/or know more about the baby inside of me than I do. I might ask someone commenting on my coffee intake how many pregancy books they've read. Have they been moved to tears by the movement of my baby? Do they care what I'll name it or how much protein its had that day? Probably not. I, however, have been dedicating my life for the last 37 weeks to keeping this baby as healthy as possible. I have done all the research I can. I have discussed what I should and should not consume with my midwives. Ultimately, and Catchfire has already said something to this effect, I am the only one who can decide what's best for this baby. And, I would argue, there is no one in the world (with the exception, perhaps of its father) who cares more about its healthy development inside of me. It's in my body and I am responsible. Not anyone else.
Taking it back to CF's original post... what about that tension around not wanting strangers to comment on or touch my body, but enjoying the kind smiles? There is something kind of comforting to know that so many strangers out there feel somewhat protective over my unborn child. Maybe those same strangers will slow their cars down in my neighbourhood when my kids are playing in the yard. I appreciate that urge to protect kids, but still resent their advice on pregnancy. How do you rectify the two?
Well, you're banned.
Good call. She she was going to be trouble. Lol.
Happy happy congrats CF and E_B_K! I loved having my girls, loved being pregnant, and get all excited for anyone about to become a parent.
That said, I don't miss the uninvited intrusions into my life because I'm visibly pregnant, nor do I miss being treated like a child because I'm expecting one. When I was pregnant with my eldest, maternity clothes were frilly, frumpy, butt ugly disasters designed to infantize and desexualize a pregnant woman. Unsolicited advice from strangers, belly-rubbing and unwelcome comments were expected whenever I went out into the public eye. It felt like everyone suddenly owned a piece of me and I was to be treated like I could no longer make adult decisions.
On the private side, my abusive partner upped the ante and became even more controlling and violent. This is common in cases of spousal abuse when a woman becomes pregnant. Midwives were few and far between then, and it wasn't until I got completely fed up with the condescending, patronizing asshole of an OB/GYN i was seeing that I tracked down a midwife and began to read everything I could get my hands on about pregnancy and childbirth. The medical model of birthing at that time was extremely controlling, and I was so thankful that, when I ended up having to have a hospital birth, I knew enough not to be bullied into unnecessary medical intervention and unwanted drugs.
Things have changed dramatically since then - I had a licensed midwife for the birth of my youngest and always knew that every decision I made was my own. I still endured the unsolicited advice and belly-rubbing, but being older I was quite comfortable setting boundaries and letting people know when they crossed them. A number of people felt it appropriate to tell me that having a baby at 40 was risky/selfish/wrong, etc. Way to be supportive, eh? I had a number of people weigh in on the evils of pain medication during birth, which is just so much more controlling bullshit. How dare someone assume how much pain I can handle?
In the end it's all about who gets a say in what goes on with a woman's body, and the answer to that is easy - your body, your choice.
Welcome, e_b-k and congratulations!
I am very jealous of all of you in provinces with midwife access. We have nothing of the sort here on PEI. It is very frustrating. I am lucky to have a Naturopath covered by my insurance so I did gain some valuable advice from her. But, anything like birthing balls, hot water bottles, etc. you have to bring yourself to the hospital. At least episiotomies are not automatic standard practice any more!
One other thing I hated was that I found some women felt the need to tell me labour and delivery horror stories! Not a good idea to a first-time pregnant mother. I found the nurses to be very controlling post-birth and when you are vulnerable and very unsure about this new HUGE responsibility it is difficult. Next time, I feel more confident in taking control.
I'd like to ask why lafauve gets to spew this anti-woman crap in here.
First of all, i'm not anti-woman what you call crap is a position that i try to include everybody involved. It alway easy to claim right but as alway nobody want responsability.
My younger brother is sick from birth so, i know what is to take care of a sick child with chronical sickness. My mother didn't take anything during her pregnancy and even so she felt guilt, so for a woman who toke drug and alcool during her pregnancy must feel really terrible.
Better 9 month of annoyance that a life of worries about your sick child.
And beside Most woman who got pregnant didn't need to be told to be cautious, they want so badly to get an healthy child that they are doing it by them self. The only case that i ear of where women who already got big problem before getting pregnant?
Also from my view your the radical! (that thing is relative).
Lefauvre, did you get my private message? Please be aware that you are posting in the feminism forum, which has a specific feminist mandate. Currently, your posts are violating that policy.
I trust you are finding the couch comfortable, Catchfire.
Personally I can't imagine serving an obviously pregnant woman an alcoholic beverage.
For that matter, you shouldn't serve anyone alcohol. Or sell cigarettes to someone with a chronic hacking cough, or who is known to have cancer. You shouldn't sell candy or pastries to obese people. You shouldn't serve alcohol, cigarettes or red meat to someone you know has had heart problems or bypass surgery. You should decide for yourself what's best for them.
I am skeptical of the link to FASD of low to moderate alcohol use during pregnancy. I think for cells to be that adversely affected, it would take a serious incident or chronic alcohol abuse. For a woman to have a beer or two or wine on occasion during her pregnancy should not harm the fetus. In fact, would no doubt help it, if it helps the mother. I think the anti-alcohol campaign, in its attempt to target FASD, far overshoots the mark.
I think you are correct about that, jas. Italian women are known to continue moderate wine drinking throughout their pregnancies.
Further on that thought, I think it's part of a western dualistic mindset to separate the fetus from the mother. Until the baby is born, they are one organism. Anything that harms the mother will harm the fetus. If the mother chronically abuses alcohol, she is harming her fetus because she is harming herself. If the mother wants to have, for example, a Guinness one night or a glass of wine because she craves it and it makes her feel good in the same way that having good food makes her feel good, she is helping herself and therefore helping the fetus. I think most people who do not have FASD themselves understand the difference between harmful and beneficial uses of anything.
ETA: as Ghislaine comments above.
My final thought on the matter: I would actually be more concerned if a pregnant woman denied herself the enjoyment of a drink or two during her pregnancy out of fears of peer censure.
Another point is that most women do not even know they are pregnant for the first 3-4 weeks, which is when the most damage can occur. If you were drinking moderately before you got pregnant, you probably will when you don't know you are pregnant. This was true for me. I was 5 weeks along when I took a test (surprise!) and had been having the odd drink and one night of heavier drinking. When I found out, I felt absolutely horrible and relayed this to my doctor. She advised that this type of thing happens with most women and assured everything should be fine.
I am skeptical of the link to FASD of low to moderate alcohol use during pregnancy. I think for cells to be that adversely affected, it would take a serious incident or chronic alcohol abuse. For a woman to have a beer or two or wine on occasion during her pregnancy should not harm the fetus. In fact, would no doubt help it, if it helps the mother. I think the anti-alcohol campaign, in its attempt to target FASD, far overshoots the mark.
Trouble is, we don't know the lower limit of safety when it comes to alcohol. True, if booze really was so dangerous that pregnant women would have to abstain completely, the entire population of western Europe would have fetal alcohol syndrome. I believe that poor nutrition during pregnancy may also play a role, particularly a deficit of folic acid. That said, the medical establishment can't recommend a safe lower limit for booze because it simply isn't known, and probably varies between individuals according to body size and ability to metabolize alcohol.
It's a troubling issue for me. I'm totally on side with the sanctity of a woman's dominion over her own body, but I have worked in drug/alcohol addiction treatment for a long time, and I've seen a lot of kids seriously damaged by booze. These kids have lifelong cognitive impairments that hamper their judgement, and they often end up in jail or with drug/alcohol problems of their own. According to the Public Health Agency of CAnada, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is the leading cause of developmental delay in Canada, and has been especially devastating in aboriginal communities due to widespread substance abuse amongst residential school survivors.
The devastating consequences make this a more complicated issue than a woman's personal choice.
I think the question, Sineed, is not whether or not there are health risks unique to pregnant women when it comes to nutrition and/or inotoxicating substances, but that who is best suited to assess, determine and prescribe solutions to those risks? Your average bartender? And only then to "visibly" pregnant women? Better for me, and, I imagine, for you, would be a comprehensive education program, easily accessible and universal, dedicated to maternal health issues. The BC midwife plan is certainly a step in that direction, but it could stand to be more attractive and more accessible to every potential mother.
Also, society tends to focus on the choices made by pregnant women individually (i.e. abstain from alcohol or citarettes) and situational factors (is a pregnant woman exposed to hazards like dangeorus chemicals or shift work at her job) are completely ignored.
A question I have about strangers touching a pregnant woman's abdomen: from your experience, are the people who do this generally men, women, or an even split?
Aristleded, I would say evenly split in my experience.
You raise a good point re: workplace hazards. Another thing that bugged me about people nagging me about coffee or whatever were environmental problems, such as pollution etc. There are many well-documented negative effects from air and water pollution, so why don't these naggers spend their time fighting this?
That's odd. You would think that women especially would know better than to touch another pregnant woman uninvited. I wonder what's going on there.
I mentioned about when women find out they're pregnant as well as environmental hazards back in post 20. Just sayin.
But good points Aristotle and Ghislaine. And jas, you nailed it.
Healthy Baby Manitoba
Only advice I ever give if someone asks, is "if you want a girl, and you don't care whether she's cis or trans, research suggests you should spend the second half of the first trimester loading up on sweet potatoes, tofu, non-alcoholic beer... anything phytoestrogenic. Just then, not the whole pregnancy... don't want her to end up straight. :P" But again, your mileage may vary. I'm happy for you two.
If a pregnant woman comes into your bar and orders a glass of wine, serve her FFS!
On general personal boundary terms I'd agree. However would you still say to that to the bartender(who could just as easily also be a woman and a woman with kids at that) who's been told that if she does serve a pregnant woman a drink, she will lose her job? Should somebody have to sacrifice themselves(and possibly have trouble feeding her own children) in the name of a strict defense of the customer's personal autonomy?
Other than the booze issue, however, I'm unequivocably with you, and would say that if servers do refuse a pregnant woman a drink, they should be required to do so in a way that withholds any sense of personal judgment and simply points out that they're following the policy of the establishment.
What jurisdiction has a law that states pregnant women cannot drink alcohol?
On second thought, I'm not sure if there are actually laws about serving alcohol to pregnant women(granted there would be no way to actually enforce a legal ban on drinking while pregnant). I've amended the previous post to delete that sentence, pending future research. Apologies.
'kay thanks.
It would be offensive for a bartender to have the responsibility of staring at each woman that asks for a drink to decide if she may be pregnant. Offensive on a few levels.
For those in some kind of crisis about wanting to impose their advice on women who are expecting a child consider this:
The baby you are thinking of -- its most important advocates and care givers will be the mother and perhaps a father. The baby will rely on the mother's judgement, her empowerment, her committment and her caring. Without those things, whatever you think you might be able to offer in that little moment of interference you think is yours to impose, will be meaningless, a drop in the bucket. Ultimately to trust and empower the mother is all that is available for those decisions are hers to make and the baby is reliant on how she responds not on some paternalistic drive-by.
Once this is fully appreciated one also can have a better understanding of what choice and reliance means and what that special relationship between a mother and child means.
I think if mothers had more power over their environments and their lives rather than less we would have more healthy babies rather than fewer. Of course this means social power, economic power etc. but that is a drift I guess.
I think bartenders should refuse to serve middle aged men with flushed complexions. But only for their own good of course.
The alcohol while pregnant issue is a tough one for me. My sister is an alcoholic and other various substance abuser. She had 5 babies. Two died shortly after birth. The one she after a stint in Narcotics Anonymous had minor health problems and the other two are on the FASD spectrum. They are both significantly intellectually challenged, and one nearly died shortly after birth.
So while I support a woman's autonomy, I've got a long-term and personal view of the harm that can occur. I might not say anything to a pregnant woman having a drink, but I'm going to have a little shudder because we don't know how much or not or at what point. We just don't know. Personally, my experience led me to abstain entirely from alcohol and caffeine and to be madam health freak. I don't expect other women to do the same by any means.
I had great pregnancies and loved being pregnant, but didn't like people touching my belly uninvited. I was in an elevator at work one day when a (male) co-worker reached over and rubbed my belly "for luck". I told him that if he ever touched me in any way ever again for any reason I'd break his fucking arm. Yes, he made out like I was over-reacting, so I told him that over-reacting would be breaking his fucking neck and to be happy we weren't going there just yet. Nobody at work attempted to touch my belly after that.
There was the case of the intervention at the gym... I was an avid runner in my second pregnancy, and continued to run up to my eighth month - letting up a little on speed and distance as my weight went up, and only quit when the change in centre of gravity started giving me shin splints. One day at our indoor fieldhouse track, a bunch of older ladies who used the walking lanes were watching me intently. When I went to the change room to get ready to go, they cornered me to tell me how I was robbing the baby of oxygen and damaging myself by running while preggers. It was actually kind of funny, in an awful and inappropriate way. I did tell them it wasn't any of their beeswax, but my midwife and GP both thought it was okay for me to run as long as I felt like it.
I only address pregnant women I don't know to tell them how wonderful they look. And I never rub a belly for luck!
If a woman wants to drink coffee, alcohol or laudnum during her pregnancy, that is her decision. If she wants to smoke cigarettes, marijuana or crack, that is her decision. If she wants to eat TV dinners, porterhouse steaks or nothing, that, too, is her decision. Any other way to say it--whether couching it in an ethical dilemma or references to jurisprudence--smacks of judgement, paternalism and sexism. If a pregnant woman comes into your bar and orders a glass of wine, serve her FFS!
I disagree. Well... sort of.
I do believe that the woman is within her rights to do whatever she wants with her body, but I also believe that people have the right to refuse any service they provide, for whatever reason they deem legitimate. So basically, the same part of my belief system that mandates people should have the freedom to do what they want with their bodies, also means that people can do whatever they want with the services they are providing. If you disagree, you have the right to go to a different establishment that will serve you.
Such as..... choosing to not serve people of colour? Aboriginal people? Gays and lesbians? Because such folks can always go elsewhere?
Sorry to burst your bubble but we have this silly little document called the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Canada ain't no libertarian fantasy. At least, not yet.
Yeah, Chauchat, well the thing is, that level of thoughtful discrimination doesn't seem to get applied to red-nosed, sweaty round men with liver conditions. How many bartenders do you know have read up on exactly how alcohol affects pregnant women? And what makes you think that these bartenders care more about her baby's health than she does? The answer to those questions should show that refusal to serve pregnant women has nothing to do with health concerns and everything to do with ideology.
I'm not a doctor (except for teeth) and I haven't read up on how alcohol affects pregnant women, but if I were working as a bartender and pregnant woman came up and ordered liquor, I'd certainly feel pretty uncomfortable. Legally, I don't think I'd have any option but to serve her, however. Certainly, in my smoking days, if a pregnant woman asked me for a cigarette (and it was clearly for her to smoke), I wouldn't give it to her. Personally, the day I found out my wife was pregnant was the day I quit smoking and during her pregnancy, I made a point of not drinking alcohol around her, given that she had given it up and I wanted to be supportive.
I don't think the analogy to the "red-nosed sweaty round men with liver conditions" necessarily holds since such people are only damaging their own health, not somebody else's. On the other hand, if you work at McDonald's and a parent brings their severely obese child in and orders a double mac and super-size fries with a gallon of coca-cola for them, is that really any better than having a glass of wine or cigarette when pregnant? I don't know. Again, I'm not an MD.
But, again if i were a bartender, and somebody I knew to be a recovering alcoholic came up to ask for liquor, I'd be very uncomfortable giving it to him, while also knowing that I had no legal right to refuse service.
Having formatting problems. Will post this later.
Thing is, a woman is the sole judge of what is good for her body and the life it carries. Women who are addicted can be pointed to programs and clinics that might help, but that's pretty much all that's rightful and appropriate. Offering a pregnant woman a cigarette? It might be the first one she's had in six months, or maybe she's cut back on tobacco as much as she can during her pregnancy, or maybe not at all. You don't know, so you have no right to judge, only the right to withhold your tobacco product.
Alcohol? We don't know how much is too much, though the effects of a mother's alcoholism has been well-documented. Again, refusing a glass of wine to a pregnant woman is wrong, unless she is already so intoxicated that you wouldn't serve her even if she weren't pregnant. Making the comparison between a pregnant woman and a man who is obviously suffering the health effects of alcoholism is a valid one. With the latter, you figure it's his life if he wants to drink himself to death. With a pregnant woman, the life she carries is a part of her body, so it's her decision to make. Yet the discrimination exists. It's not about health. It's still about controlling women and what they do with their bodies.
Such as..... choosing to not serve people of colour? Aboriginal people? Gays and lesbians? Because such folks can always go elsewhere?
Sorry to burst your bubble but we have this silly little document called the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Canada ain't no libertarian fantasy. At least, not yet.
Since when is giving your unborn child FAS a human right?
Also, I wasn't talking about breaking the law and not serving people because of race, creed, etc. When someone makes a statement that could be construed as ambiguous, you always assume the most reasonable argument. It's good form to do so. You acted as if I suggested that people blatantly ignore the law, and act in a racist manner, which is not what a reasonable person would argue. I was talking about refusing service because you believe that serving them will cause harm to themselves or others. IMO it's no different than refusing to serve someone because they are too drunk.
With the latter, you figure it's his life if he wants to drink himself to death. With a pregnant woman, the life she carries is a part of her body, so it's her decision to make. Yet the discrimination exists. It's not about health. It's still about controlling women and what they do with their bodies.
It is about health... The health of her child.
As I've said, if she wants to go and drink, fine... but don't force people to assist her in doing so. Allow them to act on their conscience. After all, how would you feel if a woman was pregnant and drinking at a bar, and the alcohol you served her gave her child FAS. I know it would bother me.
With the latter, you figure it's his life if he wants to drink himself to death. With a pregnant woman, the life she carries is a part of her body, so it's her decision to make. Yet the discrimination exists. It's not about health. It's still about controlling women and what they do with their bodies.
It is about health... The health of her child.
As I've said, if she wants to go and drink, fine... but don't force people to assist her in doing so. Allow them to act on their conscience. After all, how would you feel if a woman was pregnant and drinking at a bar, and the alcohol you served her gave her child FAS. I know it would bother me.
No one is forced to serve anyone. That idea isn't even on the table. Yet.
Chauchat, you need to contact WHO, the Surgeon General, the Canadian Medical Association--hell, grab every doctor you can find and give them a good shake!--and tell them that you've discovered that a single drink can give a fetus fetal alcohol syndrome.
In all seriousness, I hope you realize you are being very offensive. What is you experience such that you can tell a pregnant woman her business?
With the latter, you figure it's his life if he wants to drink himself to death. With a pregnant woman, the life she carries is a part of her body, so it's her decision to make. Yet the discrimination exists. It's not about health. It's still about controlling women and what they do with their bodies.
It is about health... The health of her child.
OK, then...if it's about "the health of her child", then would you ALSO support legislation forbidding employers to fire pregnant women if those women were providing for the child by themselves(due to lack of a spouse for whatever reason or due to the spouse being put out of work)and would you favor making it illegal for landlords to evict pregnant women, especially in the dead of winter? You do realize that poverty and homelessness are just as bad for the health of a child as drinking while pregnant, right?
No one is forced to serve anyone. That idea isn't even on the table. Yet.
Yet? So it is a long term goal then? I must disagree with that. Legislation compelling someone to serve alcohol to a pregnant woman is as bad as legislation banning them from doing so.
Chauchat, you need to contact WHO, the Surgeon General, the Canadian Medical Association--hell, grab every doctor you can find and give them a good shake!--and tell them that you've discovered that a single drink can give a fetus fetal alcohol syndrome.
In all seriousness, I hope you realize you are being very offensive. What is you experience such that you can tell a pregnant woman her business?
I never said that a single drink can give a fetus fetal alcohol syndrome. Do not act as if I ever made such a claim.
Also, note that in 2 of my previous posts (#55 and #62) I said that a pregnant woman is within her rights to drink if she wishes. So how am I telling her what her business is? If my post offended you, I assure you that it was not intentional, but you really need to toughen up a bit in these regards. We're having a debate, there is no need to get offended by comments you disagree with as no offence is intended.
OK, then...if it's about "the health of her child", then would you ALSO support legislation forbidding employers to fire pregnant women if those women were providing for the child by themselves(due to lack of a spouse for whatever reason or due to the spouse being put out of work)and would you favor making it illegal for landlords to evict pregnant women, especially in the dead of winter? You do realize that poverty and homelessness are just as bad for the health of a child as drinking while pregnant, right?
I'm against legislation in regards to either side of the issue. I'm just for allowing servers to follow their conscience in regards to serving pregnant women alcohol. Please don't try and make this more than what it is.
Until I, as a man, am able to conceive and bring a baby to term, I'll tell other men to STFU about this.
Perhaps, when this country doesn't force women to raise children in poverty, I'll begin to think about these other implications.
Perhaps, when women are treated equal and are representative in the boardrooms of power, I'll take them to task like others here.
Until then, us men should STFU 'til we're ready to walk the talk. And I find that seriously lacking.
I'm against legislation in regards to either side of the issue. I'm just for allowing servers to follow their conscience in regards to serving pregnant women alcohol. Please don't try and make this more than what it is.
Unfortunately that is exactly the same argument that doctors and marriage commissioners are using when it comes to complying with certain other services which are perfectly legal.
I am fine with following conscience, so long as a resignation letter comes with it, and the job can be done by someone who is willing to comply with the law.
Funny how so much conversation amongst men at times concerns the lives of women. Abortion, alcohol while pregnant, wearing veils, what they wear from a cop.
How would that look in reverse?
Laws forcing men to take birth control, no drinking or smoking while your partner is pregnant, illegal to go shirtless or look like a slob. (Sorry for the heteronormative narrative)
How would that conversation go?
Walk the talk.
And 6079, even the law is an ass. We should hold out more hope than that.
But I agree otherwise.
Chauchat, you're actually getting kinda funny.
Please, share more.
RP that was a great analogy. Thanks.
We can disagree on that one. Even when it needs to be changed or resisted, the law is one of the most important things there is, and we ignore it at our peril.
But that's another issue. I think we agree on this one.
No one is forced to serve anyone. That idea isn't even on the table. Yet.
Actually, Rebecca, that is quite inaccurate. Maysie referred above to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and its provincial equivalents are all very similar on the issue of gender discrimination. Here's what the law says, at Section 5:
5. It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public
(a) to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual, or
(b) to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual,
on a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Discrimination against pregnant women has long been held by tribunals to fall under discrimination on the basis of sex - going right back to the days when airlines used to fire flight attendants who became pregnant.
Short form: It's against the law for an establishment to refuse to serve alcohol to a woman because she's pregnant. They'd have to find, or concoct, some other excuse.
By way of contrast: Human rights codes also prohibit discrimination on the basis of age. But there are laws everywhere providing that you can't serve alcohol to persons under 18. Unless and until those laws were invalidated, bartenders have not only an excuse, but an obligation, to refuse to serve minors.
Another contrast: A bartender can lawfully refuse to serve an acquaintance whom they really dislike based on some personal interactions (e.g. a neighbour whose dog keeps soiling the bartender's lawn). As long as it can't be traced to one of the prohibited grounds (race, language, religion, sexual orientation, etc.), the bartender might get in trouble with her boss - but not with the law.
I agree with your post in general but quibble with this particular bit because it just isn't accurate. Drinking while pregnant causes lifelong harm, including impaired growth, and brain damage. Being poor doesn't cause harm on this level.
And I'll quibble with this: "Drinking while pregnant causes lifelong harm, including impaired growth, and brain damage." Always? How much? When?
Malnutrition as a result of poverty can cause harm on that level.
As can the exposure to the elements resulting from homelessness. If a pregnant woman is sleeping rough, that has a great potential to affect the health(including the neurological development)of the child she's carrying-to say nothing of the risk of violent attack on the streets(from criminals or, on a bad day, from the police themselves).
Ripple covered the first part, so I'll cover the second.
Poverty and other social determinants of health absolutely and often permanently affect health. This is documented and no longer speculation.
The point is not to blame individuals for being poor, but to make accountable the societal forces that have enabled poverty, homelessness, etc to run rampant without systemic solutions. And to reduce poverty. And to look at improving all 14 social determinants of health for communities that are negatively affected by the social determinants.
Sorry, we're way off topic now.
Here's the information I was trying to post yesterday:
Estimating the Prevalence of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: A Summary
I can't post the table but see Table 2 for the main risk factors.
This site summarizes the research on moderate drinking during pregnancy and why it has created such confusion (see under "Confusion"), but concludes that
The author, a sociologist, seems to express a fairly liberal, anti-prohibition stance. However the review of the research is useful.
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/FetalAlcoholSyndrome.html
Some excerpts:
This is as I would suspect. If a mother-to-be is abstaining out of fear of consequences rather than out of a naturally occurring aversion to alcohol, then she may be denying something that is beneficial to her physiologically, and thereby denying her fetus those benefits.
There would ultimately have to be a legal basis to support the denial of alcohol service to a pregnant woman in a public establishment, regardless of personal opinion or conscience or whatever on the part of a bartender. In the event of a court challenge from someone carrying a foetus who was denied a drink on that account alone, and in order to find in favour of the drinking establishment, the legal opinion would have to designate the foetus as a person in need of protection, removing the right to control over the applicant's body from the applicant herself, and placing it under the supervision of the state, or in this instance, bartenders and servers...and any churches/evangelical interveners licking their chops over such a decision. These matters have already been settled in this country...but perhaps not for the most part it would seem.
Well, I imagine as a woman, you wouldn't be able to conceive... cisessentialism aside, I'd also be remiss if I didn't point out that based on the 10-4-3 metric (For every ten dollars a single adult needs to live alone, an additional adult needs four dollars and an additional child needs three, a good rule of thumb for determinine household utility) single parent, single child households on social assistance have much higher benefits in absolute and utilitarian terms than do dual parent dual child households... that all of these benefits are a pittance in comparison to even the Fraser institute's stated absolute poverty line (about 900 a month by their metric) doesn't say much, other than it's bad all around, but yes, there's also an inherently sexist belief that men should be breadwinners and thus are less deserving of government support. Policies that claim to be gender-blind often exascerbate institutional sexism.
And the boardrooms, I hate to break it to you, are not the sole repositories of power. When we mourn an equal amount of women during workplace fatality days of rememberance, when cis women are jailed in the same proportion (I don't want to launch into a discussion about Andrea Jones et al right now), when we recognize and deplore the rape of people regardless of gender, then that bit of rhetorical self-immolation will ring true. Until then, I'll maintain that everyone's got their own basket of gendered oppression, and for those of you who don't want to talk about the death gap or the invisibility of male victims of rape, I wonder if your goal is to separate sex from destiny, or to perpetuate misandry. (which I will admit to indulging in, but only for recrational purposes)
No woman or man or person otherwise identified ought to be told what to do with their gestation. Sometimes I'm reminded of the old saw, "if men could get pregnant..." (Many of them can, and many women, myself included, cannot) and I tend to think that Henry Morgentaler would've still gone to jail for the rights of those men to terminate their pregnancies... and Michelle Landsberg would've called it the desire of men to murder women, even in the womb. Of course, I'm just basing that on what most of the 2nd wave, at least those who got paid to be activists, said about trans women.
RP, men, including you, have a responsibility to be active, and you have a responsibility to be active on your own terms. We women don't know what it's like to internalize message of objectification as breadwinner, bodyguard, emotional rock. Or to have your sexuality treated as something you can't control, and something hideous and inherently transactional. If you really want to help women, stop putting up so much of a brave face. Admit that there's something patronizing about women being less likely to be sentenced to jail time when convicted, or being put in the 'safe' or 'less strenuous' jobs, or that there's something destructive about a society where one gender holds a three-to-two advantage over the other in liklihood of getting the post-secondary education that is now mandatory should one want to be in the middle-class.
The less willing you are to be graded on your ability to be a meat shield the less likely I am to be graded on my ability to be a piece of meat.
Therein endeth the rant. (And yes, before I get someone implying otherwise, I'm very much a feminist. I just don't subscribe to a unidirectional construction of gender-power, and there are lots of women who feel the same way and identify as feminists... if I can manage to be a left-wing-tory, I can manage that too.)
The less willing you are to be graded on your ability to be a meat shield the less likely I am to be graded on my ability to be a piece of meat.
... (And yes, before I get someone implying otherwise, I'm very much a feminist.....
I'm.... speechless.
Yes, the darn feminists and their secret, man-as-meat-shield agendas...
This is hilarious.
Thanks for the guffaws, RTTG.
A little clarity is required.
Poor growth while the baby is in the womb and after birth
Decreased muscle tone and poor coordination
Delayed development and problems in three or more major areas: thinking, speech, movement, or social skills
Heart defects such as ventricular septal defect (VSD) or atrial septal defect (ASD)
Problems with the face, including:
Narrow, small eyes with large epicanthal folds
Small head
Small upper jaw
Smooth groove in upper lip
Smooth and thin upper lip
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001909/
From Health Canada:
Alcohol is a teratogen, meaning it causes birth defects. Its impact on First Nations communities is especially devastating; there was that study of a Manitoba reserve that found one in ten children were affected and as many as 40% exhibited signs of alcohol exposure. To say that it's all about a woman's right to choose to drink as much as she wants, and men should "STFU," is rather reductionist and doesn't begin to address how this is a devastating social problem and the leading cause of intellectual disability.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1227669/pdf/cmaj_157_1_59.pdf
That's a fair point, Sineed, and it does seem that FASD is over-represented in First Nations communities. I wonder if that has more to do with aboriginal people's lower physiological tolerance to alcohol or to the disproportionate incidence of alcoholism in First Nations communities. I would guess both.
I'm confused by RTTG's post. Perhaps someone can help me understand it or I'll try to go over it a few more times.
What's not to understand? ;)
I think it boils down to this: Do you find that the women in your life often hold you in front of them when bullets or sharp projectiles are flying? And do you like this, or do you resent it?
This site summarizes the research on moderate drinking during pregnancy and why it has created such confusion (see under "Confusion"), but concludes that
The author, a sociologist, seems to express a fairly liberal, anti-prohibition stance. However the review of the research is useful.
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/FetalAlcoholSyndrome.html
"Fairly liberal, anti-prohibition" definitely describes the rest of this site, all the work of one Prof. David Hanson, which seems dedicated to proving that alcohol is good for you. Some tidbits:
Prospective study of persons aged 75 and older found those who consumed alcohol in moderation had about a 30% reduced risk of developing dementia and about a 40% reduced risk of developing Alzheimer's dementia or disease compared to abstainers or non-drinkers.
Analysis of 84 prospective studies found that, compared with not drinking alcohol, consuming alcohol was associated with a 25% reduced risk of death from either cardiovascular disease or coronary heart diseasee and a 29% reduced risk of death from incident or recurring coronary heart disease.
Viewing alcohol advertising did not lead to higher alcohol consumption among young college men, according to experimental study.
Enough said, I think.
Well, never any bullets or projectiles but I have intervened for all 3 of my sisters and mom and a few other women when men were being abusive to them. I've never really given any thought to whether I liked or resented it. It seemed to happen organically. And no, I didn't find they were holding me in front, I inserted myself quite voluntarily. In retrospect, one case, I will admit I briefly took a bit of violent pleasure in it when I was a teen.
Ok, I've reread it a few times and am starting to see what RTTG is saying. I guess I disagree. There's a physiology dynamic I just can't ignore when men are abusive to women. The breadwinner I can't speak to as I've never been there. The social assistance argument is a bit strange too as it doesn't matter if that single parent is male or female, they receive the same either way. Yes, it's normally women but I find that's normally because too many men walk away and abdicate their responsibility.
The post-secondary inference gave me a bit of a chuckle too as when I attended just 20 years ago us males were vastly overrepresented. That the pendulum has swung after 100's of years to a brief blip on the side of women is laughable.
As to rape, is Jerry Sandusky, the NCAA scandal, Scouts or Catholic priests just swept under the carpet?
I guess I should stop the drift. The post was so out there, I thought I must be missing something. To turn such a complex dynamic into binary thinking doesn't fly with me.
I think I'll keep my brave face, it's one thing I do enjoy. I'm no white knight. Just interested in the interests of the women in my family. And seeing the privilege I've enjoyed over them starting to tilt in their direction is something I'm not going to get too worked up over.
Enough said, I think.
Well, like I said, it's helpful for the summary of the research that's so far been done.
Five years of Radical Doula!
The blogpost that started it all.
What was so groundbreaking about this conference was that it brought together two of my worlds, the birth activists (midwives, doulas, academics) and the pro-choice activists (policy people, advocates, organizers). I can see now how these two groups, the former of which dedicates its time to supporting women as they bring children into the world, and the latter that fights for women's rights to not bring children into the world, don't necessarily go together. The irony is that I never understood the contradictions that exist between the them until Lynn Paltrow pointed it out to me precisely because the two are really good about not mentioning the others issues. The midwifery conferences I have been to in the past never mentioned the issue of abortion allowing me to erroneously assume that they were all pro-choice just like me. Likewise, the pro-choice conferences rarely mentioned the issues that face birthing women so focused as they are on the rights of women fighting not to birth. So congratulations NAPW, you succeeded in beginning a dialogue between the two movements (as stilted and precarious as it may have been at times) even just by creating a space where that dialogue was possible.
What this conference made entirely clear to me (and maybe what I already understood from my own dual roles) is that the activists from these two camps need to be in the same room, if not simply because the people whom we are fighting are one and the same. The people who want to take away women's rights to abortion, contraception, and comprehensive sex education are the same ones who aren't afraid to forcibly subject women to c-sections, limit the scope of women's choices about how they birth or place the rights of an unborn fetus above the rights of a woman. So let's keep the conversation going, and focus on how we can protect women's choices throughout all the phases of their lives.
I'm a doula and I'm a lesbian. I'm a doula and I may never have children. I'm a doula and I'm Latina. I'm doula and I'm not entirely comfortable with the gender/sex binary.
Oh good, someone identifies as a lesbian despite not identifying as a woman... that's not relying on the cissexism of coercive-female-assignment at all...
What to reject when you're expectingWith technological advances in medicine, you would expect those numbers to steadily improve. But the rate of maternal deaths has risen over the last decade, and the number of premature and low-birth-weight babies is higher now than it was in the 1980s and 1990s.
Why are we doing so badly? Partly because mothers tend to be less healthy than in the past, “which contributes to a higher-risk pregnancy,” says Diane Ashton, M.D., deputy medical director of the March of Dimes.
But another key reason appears to be a health-care system that has developed into a highly profitable labor-and-delivery machine, operating according to its own timetable rather than the less predictable schedule of mothers and babies. Childbirth is the leading reason for hospital admission, and the system is set up to make the most of the opportunity. Keeping things chugging along are technological interventions that can be lifesaving in some situations but also interfere with healthy, natural processes and increase risk when used inappropriately.
Use a midwife!
Midwives rock!
Nearly 27 years ago (holy crap!) when my eldest was born, there was so much pressure to medicalize every aspect of childbirth. I actually had a night nurse try to bully me into taking pain meds (I left my midwife behind in the US when we moved back here at the last minute) after being in labour for 30+ hours. Good thing I'd seen a midwife, read everything I could get my hands on about natural childbirth. The excuses they provided for trying to medicalize my daughter's birth were window-dressing -- it was for their own convenience.
Wow, can't believe I'm still pissed about that after all these years ...
Wow, can't believe I'm still pissed about that after all these years ...
I can understand it; doctors have a lot of power, especially at a very vulnerable time. I can't speak for my partner, but I still feel like a fucking patsy for letting the obstetrician terrify us to the point where my partner got the amnio, even though all the indicators in the ultrasounds showed that nothing was amiss. The whole thing was a horrible and demoralizing experience.
... and doulas. Let's not forget the work they do.
Even though I was nearly 40 with my youngest, I looked at the miscarriage rates for amnio and said no way. Like you, we had very positive ultrasounds.
Exactly. My partner was that age as well. The obstetrician didn't mind scaring the shit out of us and shaming us into the amnio, but she did not once mention those risks. We had to dig that up ourselves.
They just brought in a similar rule last year here in SK that doctors must warn women of ALL the potential risks of abortion. Given how we felt as 40-year-olds, I don't want to think about how a 17-year-old would react to being told she might become sterile, wind up having a hysterectomy or die if she goes through with the procedure,
I was in my mid 30s with both kids, and was fortunate to have an FP with a very pragmatic approach to the advance testing. When I questioned whether it was really necessary, he asked what I'd do with the information if I had it, and when I said nothing different, he said he figured I didn't need to if I didn't want to. End of conversation.
The obstetrician bullied us into inducing with Thing 1 because she was an arbitrary number of days overdue (even though I thought she might not be for other reasons). Didn't like that, made labour tougher than it needed to be. We stayed home to have Thing 2, which freaked out my wonderful FP a bit, but he is able to agree to disagree. Much preferred birthing at home, but I'm hinky about hospitals.
I planned birthing at home with both girls, but anatomy and circumstance forced us into a medical environment both times. What can I say? Weird hips, they get 'stuck'. At least I was able to have a natural birth with my first, because she was small enough for me to push her past the barrier. 17 years later, my youngest was in the same jammed-up position, and she was too big and I was too old to push her out. C-section.
The best thing that women/couples can do is be as well informed as possible. Sometimes things don't go as they should, but being educated about the process, even if you're seeing an OB/GYN, or a midwife, it will allow you to take control of the birthing to whatever extent you can.
Home birthing here in SK is still sort of a grey area - midwives can't practice in hospital and while midwifery has been recognized (first step of implementation), there are no rules or provisions set up. So, while it's not technically illegal, it's also not part of, supported by or paid for through our provincial medical system. So choosing to birth at home was a bit radical. I was lucky that we didn't need to go to the hospital or I'm sure I would have encountered some flak.
I've had a few people say that home birthing was a foolhardy decision, that something can change or go wrong so quickly - but in comparing my first labour and birth in hospital with the second at home I keep stumbling up against the issue of attention. In hospital, we were sharing one nurse among three or four labouring women. Because I tend to be pretty stoic and have fairly easy labours, I was not getting the lion's share of the nurse's attention. She'd pop her head in every so often and ask the blond guy how I was doing - like he'd know!! At home, we had a midwife and my SIL, who was a degree-carrying RN with extra training as a doula in the room with me at all times. I can't help but think that if something was amiss, they'd have caught it a lot sooner. And we're only a few minutes from hospital in any case.
Yes to more information and education!! But I think there are some who don't want to know in as much detail as I did. I think how comfortable you are with the idea of what's going on with your body makes an enormous difference as well. I had a friend who was freaked out by the whole idea of pushing a human out of her nethers and just got more worked up the more she found out. I think it was really a hard experience for her emotionally.
Sorry you didn't get your home birth - you do your best, but there are no guarantees.
CFL