Pregnant women’s rights are not just for developing countries

I was shocked today to read on Live V 2.0 the story of a woman in USA who almost lost her life because the doctors on duty refused to perform an abortion on her. She arrived in hospital with serious bleeding in her 20th week of pregnancy. She had known that this could happen as it seems that the pregnancy carried certain risks. By the time she arrived at the hospital it was clear that the foetus was not viable. Despite this, two doctors refused to treat her, objecting that they did not perform abortions, so she was left bleeding and in pain for many hours until a nurse decided to call another doctor, who agreed to treat her.

“My two kids at home almost lost their mother because someone decided that my life was worth less than that of a fetus that was going to die anyway. My husband had told them exactly what my regular doctor said, and the ER doctor had already warned us what would have to happen. Yet none of this mattered when confronted by the idea that no one needs an abortion. You shouldn’t need to know the details of why a woman aborts to trust her to make the best decision for herself. I don’t regret my abortion, but I would also never use my situation to suggest that the only time another woman should have the procedure is when her life is at stake. After my family found out I’d had an abortion, I got a phone call from a cousin who felt the need to tell me I was wrong to have interfered with God’s plan. And in that moment I understood exactly what kind of people judge a woman’s reproductive choices.”

There are many elements behind this story that are quite shocking. It’s not just the whole question of conscience clauses in healthcare that T Mae talks about in her post, but also why pregnant women do not have a choice in certain countries when it comes to making decisions about their own life. To me, behind the debate on conscience clauses in healthcare is the idea that the male medic is still in control of pregnant women’s bodies.

 In America there is an association called National Advocates for Pregnant Women that “works to secure the human and civil rights, health and welfare of all women, focusing particularly on pregnant and parenting women, and those who are most vulnerable – low income women, women of color, and drug-using women.”

This group tries to inform the public of the consequences of prosecuting women accused of “murdering” their unborn child: 

 “In the name of fetal rights and under the guise of the war on drugs, hundreds of women have been arrested for being pregnant and continuing to term in spite of a drug or alcohol problem. One state, South Carolina, by judicial fiat has declared that viable fetuses are legal persons and that pregnant women who use illegal drugs or engage in any other behavior that jeopardizes the fetus can be prosecuted as child abusers or murderers. Indeed, the arrest of pregnant women is not limited to those using illegal drugs. In Utah, a woman was charged with murder based on the claim that she caused a stillbirth by refusing to have a c-section earlier in her pregnancy. These arrests are taking place in spite of the lack of authorizing legislation and in spite of overwhelming opposition from medical, public health and child welfare organizations.”

 Worst of all, in some US states a single early drug test has been used to detect pregnant women’s consumption of drugs or alcohol in pregnancy, and if this is positive the newborn is removed from its family of origin (yes, I’m taking about one single test). Of course consuming drugs and alcohol during pregnancy is not good for the mother or the baby, but this sort of intervention does not make things better. What about setting up programmes to help women to deal with their addiction during pregnancy? Well, maybe that’s too expensive, so better let social services fix it.

 If you surf around this webpage you will find amazing and awful stories of women who went to jail for many years because they had a stillbirth when they were drug addicts. These women were stigmatized, segregated and punished, and left without any sort of help.

Would we have the same sort of reaction to a doctor or a pharmaceutical company that by mistake poisoned some medication given to pregnant women?  ( Thanks Sally for the link) Very likely not. So, have a look at what these guys are doing, because I do believe it’s worthwhile.

Natalia

struggling here…

I have always been one for children’s empowerment…I have made my best attempt at making the house feel as much r’s as it is ours, inspired mostly by Montessori principles, and many many ideas from bloggers out there. R. has all her stuff at her reach in her room, pictures at her level, has a kitchen cupboard so that she can get her stuff, her little spaces in almost every room of the house, and ways of adapting the big rooms and heights for her. I also respect as much as I can her timings, her need to do things alone and her way – mainly because chaos ensues as soon as you unthinkingly try to help her. In any case, you get the picture…

One thing, however, that has always been an issue for me was the bed. I could not bring myself to make r. sleep on a floor bed from the start, mainly for my/our benefit. First she slept with us, although she officially had a moses basket, and then, slowly, she started using her cot, a decision we made for different reasons that I won’t go into now. I know it was for my peace of mind mainly – the thought of her falling off the mattress, of her crawling at night and putting her fingers somewhere dangerous, or something falling on her…that kind of thing would keep me awake, at a point where more sleep is all I could think of.

Now she is two and a half, however, that is no longer a choice, since she started using her ‘big girl’s bed’, as she could get out of her cot. And you know, at the moment, I find it is an utter nightmare. Her bedtime, usually around 8, is now around 10.30, with all her coming and goings, because she clocked very early on how lovely it is to get out. …and its driving me nuts.

I hate how this little thing conflicts with the way I try to do all other things, but I also have learnt that coherence is not always possible…but I struggle. So I try to be gentle, and manage timings and routines a bit more tightly, to see if I can move this new development to a shape that does not make me want to scream every night. Unfortunately, this is how it seesm to end up every night. Me, álmost asleep while she keeps chatting and poking me to keep me awake, or me explaining that mummy needs to go now, and that she needs to stay in her bed, in her special room…which lasts about three minutes, at most. In the end, I bring her back all huffing and puffing, at the rhythm of ‘how many times have I told you to GO TO SLEEP’….which ends up making her cry, and me feeling shit, and crying, and her going to sleep two minutes later. So, as you can see I am not getting there. 

I am not sure how much this is about feminism and motherhood, but it explains partly why my level of productivity has gone way down – I just can’t face sitting at my desk at 11 at night, and in any case, I need to clean up, organise stuff for the next day, and even talk to my partner. So sorry, and if any of you please can tell me this is a phase, which of course, it has to be, I would be grateful!

Lucila

 

Mum, are you sure I’m a girl?

 I remember wondering about this when I was 3 or 4. I had short hair, I had a predilection for boy’s toys and I was unaware of the basic rudiments of gender difference. When I look at photos from that time I can clearly see that I could have been a boy or a girl, especially when I was in shorts and a T-shirt. At the time I use to wonder: “What if I’m a boy and my parents don’t know yet”?

All my hesitations quickly disappeared when I fell in love with my neighbour, who happened to be a boy. Then I wanted to do everything just like him. If he liked chocolate, that was my favourite food; if he was an avid comic reader, so was I. To my mind he would notice my existence if I was the perfect companion for him.

What I’m trying to say is that my gender was constructed in a dialogue between the external and the internal, between the life surrounding me and my own development and needs. It was a complex process that took me a long time.

Nowadays girls don’t have this space. The whole of their experience is merchandised and served up ready to be consumed. Girls wear pink, dress like princesses, use makeup and have a certain way of talking in a high-pitched voice that I find very annoying (it’s a mix between seductive and infantile). As Lucila mentioned a couple of days ago, there has been quite a lot of talk in the UK about the excesses of certain clothing branches , but in fact what the high street is selling is what you can find embedded in our culture.

 Last week I found the courage to devote some time to the feminine task of waxing. Following major negligence on my side (please remember that I’m a feminist and feminists have hairy legs on principle) I decided to go a beauty salon. When I left I picked up a leaflet listing the treatments offered, and what did I find?

 Children’s parties (minimum age 10 years) The party includes everyone getting their nails filed & polished and makeup applied.

 You can call me conservative, old-fashioned or just old, but the whole idea of 10-year-old girls being into polishing their nails and applying makeup give me the creeps.

The way these girls are constructing their idea of woman/girlhood is based exclusively on adornment and accessories. There is no room for them to express ambivalence about their gender because by the time they are 3 years old they are already dressed in pink like princesses.

I think it was healthy at that age to wonder why I was a girl, and more than anything I think it’s important to respect that space instead of immersing girls in the whole pink experience as the only way of constructing their sexual identity. Feeling like a woman or a girl is more than wearing certain garments. By pushing girls into identifying so early with their sex we are not allowing them to explore the boundaries of their sexual identity, preventing them from being the women they want to be in the future.

 This whole pink and girly culture is about making girls and women vulnerable to other peoples’ opinions about their appearance. Why do you need to dress your baby girl in pink from head to toe if it’s clear that she’s a girl? Well, the answer is that it’s not clear that a girl is a girl until she is 4 or 5, in some cases. But we’re so eager to make them look like a girl or a boy that we can’t wait for them to discover it for themselves. I think this culture is really damaging little girls, but I don’t see any sign of change. Am I too pessimistic?

Natalia

Elegir no vacunar

Recientemente los medios de comunicación han mostrado distintas noticias y reportajes sobre padres y madres que han decidido no vacunar a sus hijos  . La razón de este inusual interés no es otra que el aparente rebrote del sarampión en algunos países europeos, incluyendo España. En la mayoría de estas noticias los culpables de este rebrote son aquellos que han decidido no vacunar a sus hijos.

Lo que me ha molestado de estas noticias es cómo se presentan a los padres que han optado por no vacunar. Estos padres son no sólo unos irresponsables que hacen peligrar la salud de sus hijos y de los que les rodean, sino también unos estúpidos ignorantes que se dejan llevan por una moda. Como en todas las cuestiones de la crianza, cada vez que los padres o las madres contradicen a la clase médica son acusados de los peores crímenes.

En mi caso, opté por vacunar a E. porque vivimos en un entorno internacional en el que la gente viaja frecuentemente a países extranjeros, y además yo trabajo en la Universidad en la que estamos en contacto con estudiantes de todo el mundo. Dado que mi pareja es francés y yo vasca, nuestro hijo ha estado rodando por aeropuertos desde los tres meses, así que para mí la opción de no vacunar no la tomé mucho en serio, pero entiendo perfectamente las razones por las que algunos padres que no quieren vacunar.

Entre estas razones se encuentran los componentes nocivos de las vacunas y la falta de información sobre los efectos secundarios que estas producen. Cualquier padre que haya vacunado a su hijo de la triple vírica (MMR en el Reino Unido) sabe de qué hablo. Nadie dice nada, nadie te explica nada pero nuestro hijo estuvo enfermo por casi un mes, con diarreas, fiebre y malestar. Nuestro pediatra en Bilbao en el que confío con los ojos cerrados me dijo que esa vacuna es un virus vivo por lo que los niños enferman de verdad para poder inmunizarse. Yo estaba avisada, pero aun así me asustó.

Creo que no estaría de más que los medios de comunicación intentaran ser mas objetivos y no presentaran a los padres que intentan comprender las cosas mas allá de lo que los médicos les dicen como estúpidos o irresponsables. Todavía está muy cerca la campaña de vacunación contra la gripe A que resultó ser no tan necesaria como se pensaba, y en la que muchos padres comunicaron reacciones adversas y no conocidas de la vacuna.

Personalmente no pienso que los padres que no vacunen sean un peligro para la sociedad, y creo que su derecho a preguntar y plantear dudas sobre cuestiones que no están totalmente claras es lícito e importante. La cuestión no es tanto si vacunar o no sino las consecuencias de las vacunación en las condiciones en las que se aplican en estos momentos. Así que mas allá de la polémica, creo que el debate es saludable y la opción de no vacunar respetable.

Natalia

old news but good…

I don’t know about you, but I only get to read the papers I buy on Saturday slowly during the week, so here it goes, a bit late…

Guess what everyone is talking about these days, and was the headline of the Guardian this Saturday? New regulations on the sexual commercialisation of children. David Cameron (the UK Prime Minister that is) commisioned research on this, called the Bailey Review, and the report is out this week. Some of the recommendations include:

‘to back a plan to stop retailers selling inappropriate clothes for pre-teens and shield childrenfrom sexualised imagery across all media, including selling “lads magazines” in brown covers and making the watchdog Ofcom more answerable to the views of parents.

Retailers would be required to sign up to a new code preventing the sale of items for pre-teens with suggestive slogans, which the prime minister has repeatedly criticised.’

What it seems like is that more than regulation and legislation the recommendations are  going to be for signing up to voluntary codes of conduct for instance.

What Tanith Carey argues in the the family section is that regulation is a good way of sending a signal, but it is only a starting point, and urges parents to be more vocal and to exert their power as parents too.

I think it is a step forward that this is a matter of debate, of regulation and that it migth open up spaces for parents to feel that they are not isolated in thinking that padded bras and thongs with suggestive slogans are a bit mad for 6 six year olds.

In this debate, there were many opinion pieces which can be found online here and here and here for instance, and luckily the F word made an appearance because I was already starting to worry about siding with the conservatives!

Lucila

Guest post at The Variegated Life

Today I’m writing a guest post on working from home at The Variegated Life .  We love her blog and we’re happy to contribute, so have a look at it…

Natalia

The narrative of the lonely hero

This has been an intensive weekend, with an unusual exposure to TV. The result of this intoxication is this post. Let me explain that on Saturday night I watched Lord of the Rings, and a couple of days earlier I watched a BBC documentary on Moreno Ocampo (Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in The Hague)

You might think that they’re not that related, but in fact they are.  The BBC documentary was very good, but the whole narrative was about Moreno Ocampo’s loneliness in facing his titanic task: bringing global justice to this world. He was screened walking along at night making his way home after an exhausting day, alone in his flat, eating a frugal breakfast without a trace of another human being (not to mention children). He was shown as a man devoted to a sole cause, and this cause deserved all his effort; that’s why despite the opposition from the United States and other major international powers, he’s still a hero.

Of course the BBC documentary showed women working alongside Ocampo, but they were his faithful companions, his devoted allies.

I personally admire this man, but I don’t like it when documentaries take this line of the lonely hero to show the personality and strength of the main character. What about other ways of committing to global justice that belong to other sort of narratives? For example, Scilla Elworthy set up the Oxford Research Group in her kitchen and has developed influential work in the field of peace studies; and there is Elsa Gindler and her amazing and pioneer body work.

These women work from a different perspective that we can called holistic, in which they try to engage all aspects of themselves in what they do. It’s possible to fight against war and have a family and a life, but for some reason I don’t understand all these documentaries and films keep on insisting that in order to do your task you need to have no family, no love and no ties. These heroes duties are full of sacrifices and burdens, whereas the women above are more about embracing what comes along on the way.

When Miranda Otto’s character is about to kill one the bad guys in Lord of the Rings the bad guy says something like: “There is no man that can kill me” and she answers: “I’m no man”; and kills him.

Well, this is about the same. I don’t want to do things differently from men (I don’t want to be defined as merely opposite to men): I just want to do it as a woman, but for God sake! A little bit of inspiration and imagination on feminine narratives would really pave our way.

Natalia

Carta a un medico

Estimado Doctor Huesos,

Le escribo para darle algunas sugerencias para su practica. No se si se acuerda de mi, yo soy la que lleve a mi hija porque tenia el pulgar trabado, lo que me entere que se llama dedo gatillo, y para ver si estaba todo bien con sus pies y postura. Si, si, la que lloro con su hija, claro. De eso le queria hablar, porque en el momento no soy muy articulada con mis pensamientos, pero ahora tuve tiempo para refelxionar sobre esta experiencia, y esto es lo que me parece.

Mi primer consejo es que antes de hacer nada que le vaya a causar dolor, incluso aunque cure a un/a paciente, usted haga la explicacion racional, el dibujito y todas esas cosas que hizo despues mientras mi hija lloraba desconsoldamente ANTES, y para los cuidadores tanto como para el/la paciente, no importa su edad. Que le explique a la madre/padre/cuidador cual es el problema, y que es lo que va a pasar, y no que – aunque se que usted se tiene plena confianza- haga las cosas de sorpresa. Y que cuando intente explicar el dibujito, yo le preste mi atencion dividida, dado que tengo que consolar a mi hija, no se sorprenda. Aunque parte de no mirarlo era un poco el odio que me genera que me traten con paternalismo. Si ya se, usted penso que era que estaba yo desconsolada por mi hija. Si, un poco y un poco. Y de paso le digo, no es necesario explicar algo simple cincuenta  veces. A pesar de ser madre y que me angustie el estado de mi hija – porque no tengo idea de lo que paso- soy un ser medianamente inteligente. Si, ya se, usted me dijo que el llanto no tenia correlacion con el dolor – pero sabe que, si mi hija llora es porque le dolio, si, estaba cansada que no ayuda, pero creo que mas que todo, porque se lo hizo sin avisarle, y por eso fue que tambien vomito. Mi hija solo vomito unas pocas veces cuando llora, y casualmente dos de tres fueron con medicos que no la respetaron lo suficiente como para explicarle lo que se venia.

El proximo punto es que el consejo que usted me dio acerca de mi practica de madre, es sabio, si se usa en un buen contexto. Usted me dijo que a menos que me calme, ella no se iba a calmar. Seria mucho mas facil calmarme si supiese lo que esta pasando, eso es seguro, por lo que lo llevo al punto anterior. Segundo, le pido que aunque usted este lleno de confianza y consejos, se los meta un poco en el culo. Si, como ve, aprecio su conocimiento de mi forma de ser madre a los veinte minutos de encuentro. Y seguramente, usted apreciara estos consejos como yo los suyos.

En fin, espero que su practica mejore con estos consejos, con sus futuros clientes, entre los cuales, desafortunadamente – aunque no dudo de sus capacidades como medico- no contara.

Desde ya, lo saluda atentamente,

Lucila

On pink and other toy segregation

Review of Chapter 3, Pinked! of Orenstein, Peggy, 2011, Cinderella ate my daughter. Dispatches from the front lines of the new girlie-girl culture, New York:  HarperCollins Publishers

If you want to read a general summary of the book read here, chapter 1 here and chapter 2 here.

The problem with pink, this author argues, is not obviously the colour itself but how little a portion it is of the rainbow. This is representative to her of how limiting a range available there is for the creation of female identity in the mainstream toys and colours for children.

In a way, one could be happy for the celebration of girlhood through all things pink. But she argues that this celebration of girlhood, just as with princesses, celebrates a very limiting and limited portion of what it means to be a girl/woman. It essentially fuses girl identity with appearance. 

Orenstein traces the history of the use of pink and blue for girls and boys and shows that until recently children weren’t colour coded –white was used for all as it made sense for better cleaning and saving. When it did start, pink was actually for boys – sublimated red- and blue for girls- which related to the colours of the Virgin Mary. In any case, what she shows is how strong is the power of marketing to impose these colours, and also in the ways in which more and more they create different developmental stages. She shows how people in the retail business invented the ‘toddler’ phase rather than child developmental research, for instance. The same goes with ‘tween and all the different separations that now exist. The bottom line is: separating (in age and sex) boosts profits. Pink makes business sense.

She shows next how toys have fallen into this game of prettifying themselves to sell. Sesame street had trouble with finding a girl figure that was successful, until they made a ‘pretty’ one (there are very few girls in the programme, one which has addressed many issues such as race and disability, but gender…it still struggles). The same with Dora the explorer, the one aimed at 5-8 years old: is suddenly tall and elongated, more ‘pretty’. The excuse of manufacturers is always the same ‘we are honouring children’s pattern of play’. But are they honouring or imposing? Where’s the line?

The author ponders about the importance of toys for children, can’t we just say ‘oh this are just toys, let’s not worry about it’? You could, of course, but she argues, again, that what we have, own and wear says a lot about ourselves, these things in many ways reflect who we are. So she asks then:

‘What do the toys we give our girls, the pinkness in which they are steeped, tell us about what we are telling them? What do they say about who we think they are and ought to be?’

So, if we buy our children these toys: what are we telling them about who they are, what they should value, and what it means to be female?

With this in mind, she analyses the evolution of dolls. From dolls that were meant to boost the ‘flagging maternal instinct’, to Barbie, who entered the scene in the 60s, toys reflected parental values and/or societal values. She shows how Barbie was, in the 60s, a moment when gender values were in flux, in a way revolutionary, as it reflected a whole new idea of what women could be that differed in some ways from the washing machine and irons that came with other dolls. Barbie was single, fun, free to hang out with boyfriends. But Barbie has changed over the years, its features softened, its palette of colours reduced, it was made more ‘pretty’ as its public changed – instead of the 8-12 year old market, more and more its consumers are in the 3-6 market.  And older girls, in rejection to anything babyish, look for ‘cool’. In this case Barbie is left for Bratz. Bratz are dolls that exude ‘sassiness and attitude’, which in another words means sexy. From pretty to sexy, that’s the line to walk on for girls.

So the ‘innocence’ of princesses’ and even of Barbie now fades away to give way to what was behind it more clearly: narcissism and materialism. And Bratz more bluntly clearly define appearance and consumption as hallmarks of female identity. And Bratz were very successful, taking up to 40% of the doll market.

She states that she does not think that these companies have a plan to brainwash our children…but that they do it because it works, and in a way parents pay for it. So the question becomes then ‘why does it work and why parents pay for it?’

What she asks is:

‘why do parents need to apply such difference between male and female?

 ’what is the anxiety that accounts for the surge of the pink and pretty?’

She answers with more questions.

She shows how what it seems is that the more freedom women have, the more polarised a culture’s ideas about the sexes becomes. But, how is this to be interpreted?  Is it fear of sameness? Or is it that now we can enjoy difference without fear? Or is the segregation biologically driven?  Even if so, she asks herself what is the impact of separate but equal might make on children’s perceptions of themselves. This is the next chapter theme: nature and nurture.

This chapter is one in which I agree with loads of what she says, and the dilemmas she struggles with, but one in which I would have liked to have been analysed more in depth.. or let’s say I would have liekd more ammunition towards corporate practices .

 This chapter is supposed to show the transition from the innocence of princesses to the ‘coolness’ of sexy. And in a way, it is clear through her description of the ‘dolls war’ that there was something here in that transition that worked, if not Bratz would not have been such a phenomenon. So it is a phenomenon. The more popular toys are ones who encourage first prettiness and now sexiness for girls. And as she says, when we buy these toys we are telling them something about themselves, about what we think they should be.

In addition, the chapter showed clearly how the segregation of toys into boys or girls and ages, boosted profits enormously. As she says, pink makes business sense. She criticises the answer of most toy producers…but then at the end in a way it feels as if she lets corporations off the hook a bit.

As I desribed above, she ends up the chapter saying that she does not think there is a great conspiracy from these companies to brainwash our children, which we can probably agree with, but that they do it because it works. Because children want it and parents pay for it. But even though this is a very valid point, I would say that you don’t need a conspiracy to say that these companies should be responsible for what they produce. And although parents are a crucial factor here, putting the concluding focus on parents and culture more generally for buying these produce seemed to let the companies off the hook a bit.

In any case, as I said before, this book sparks more questions than gives many answers to in a way. It made me want to know more: but how are these toys used? How do parents justify their buy? How does peer pressure and gender policing have a role in this? TV? How does it differ in different contexts where the marketing machine is not so developed? What can we do about it?? Some of these questions she answers in other chapters, but some are left lingering.

Lucila

links

As I haven’t finished my review of Orenstein next chapter – I promise to finish it first thing tomorrow morning, it is just that jet lag means that r. is going to bed at 10.30 at night, and I don’t have the energy to work after that! – I will point out some great blog posts on these matters:

one is blue milk’s on bratz and the sexualisation of children. there are many on this theme on her blog, but this one is a classic.

The other one is one by adventures in boogieville, where she talks about race and gender, and ends up with princesses. She points to the crucial thing here. That no matter what we add to princesses: introduce different races, activities, strenghts, the bottom line is that princesses are about being pretty. And this is problematic.

Lucila