According to a recent article in the Daily Mail (Daily Fail, if you ask me), "an average of 80 abortions are carried out in England and Wales every year on IVF babies." The author, Mohamed Menabawey, is a consultant infertility specialist at the London Bridge Fertility Centre and he is apparently appalled that women who have IVF abort the foetuses that they do not want to carry. According to Menabawey, if you are desperate enough to go through the pain and effort to conceive through IVF you should be thankful that you have any foetuses at all. 'Aborting' , according to this fertility doctor, is wrong and 'social abortion' (his term, not mine) is much different to 'medical abortion' (where physical abnormality is involved).
OMG this makes me so angry!
If Menabawey is a medical doctor, I find it extremely troubling that he would moralise about the personal choices of his patients in a national newspaper. I have no problem with doctors not agreeing with abortion but I do have a problem with forcing their own beliefs on patients. Under the Hippocratic Oath, doctors agree to do no harm to their patients. Encouraging women to keep foetuses that they do not wish to carry through into a full-term pregnancy or moralising about how these women are 'bad' is harmful and frankly, if a woman chooses to go through IVF and then changes her mind in the end, THAT IS HER CHOICE.
It is stunning that in 2010 we still have highly educated professionals placing limitations on choice. Whether a women chooses to terminate a pregnancy for 'social' or 'medical' reasons is NOT the doctor's concern. Menabawey seems to suggest that his IVF patients are 'bad' women for not consulting him before choosing to terminate an IVF pregnancy!
Thumbs down, no hugs.
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Pregnancy in 12 months or your money back
Sometimes when I read about products related to pregnancy or fertility (after picking my jaw up from the floor) I seriously fear for the future.
Cambridge Temperature Concepts, a British manufacturer, is now offering women a MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE if their new product, Duo Fertility, (£495) does not result in a pregnancy after 12 months.
That's right. If you don't get knocked up, you get your money back.
So what is Duo Fertility? Well! Just when you thought conception couldn't get any more un-sexy or more complication, this 'intelligent' fertility monitor measures your basal body temperature with such accuracy it can predict your ovulation up to six days in advance. According to the manufacturer:
"The sensor automatically measures and records your skin temperature, taking approximately 20,000 temperature measurements while you sleep (compared to just one measurement per day by most competing products). This allows easy detection of the upward shift in basal body temperature which is associated with ovulation."
Um, sounds comfortable. But here's the kicker:
"Data is transferred from the sensor to the DuoFertility reader wirelessly. You will then be able to see a simple display of your fertility status over the next six days on your reader, giving you plenty of time to plan a romantic evening in! You can consult the reader at your convenience - there is no need to have it with you all the time, and you don't have to use it at any particular time of the day or week."
Now, I know for couples dealing with infertility, planning and monitoring fertility is a part of daily life that most people don't even think about. BUT it REALLY ANNOYS ME that the manufacturer is GUARANTEEING a pregnancy. On the surface this totally implausible offer has the potential to lead many women, already suffering debilitating anxiety over their inability to become pregnant, to believe that if they simply monitor their fertility with this device they will magically become pregnant. If you actually read the fine print in the terms and conditions of the offer it says:
"There may be medical reasons (such as lack of ovulation) which will prevent our Products from assisting you becoming pregnant, but with which the product may assist in diagnosis."
What annoys me even more is that the company sells the product with the added bonus of free, ongoing consultation with fertility specialists. In reality, the company totally absolves themselves of responsibility:
"The consultancy services are for information purposes only, and are not a substitute for professional medical advice. Please contact your doctor before using any Product(s), particularly if you are already under medical care. Always check with your doctor if you have any concerns about your condition or treatment. We are not responsible or liable, directly or indirectly for any form of damages whatsoever resulting from the use, misuse or reliance on information contained in or implied by the information provided to you during such consultancy."
What about the psychological trauma that results from using a device with the hope that you will get pregnant and then potentially ending up with no baby after 12 months of use?
ANNOYING.
Cambridge Temperature Concepts, a British manufacturer, is now offering women a MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE if their new product, Duo Fertility, (£495) does not result in a pregnancy after 12 months.
That's right. If you don't get knocked up, you get your money back.
So what is Duo Fertility? Well! Just when you thought conception couldn't get any more un-sexy or more complication, this 'intelligent' fertility monitor measures your basal body temperature with such accuracy it can predict your ovulation up to six days in advance. According to the manufacturer:
"The sensor automatically measures and records your skin temperature, taking approximately 20,000 temperature measurements while you sleep (compared to just one measurement per day by most competing products). This allows easy detection of the upward shift in basal body temperature which is associated with ovulation."
Um, sounds comfortable. But here's the kicker:
"Data is transferred from the sensor to the DuoFertility reader wirelessly. You will then be able to see a simple display of your fertility status over the next six days on your reader, giving you plenty of time to plan a romantic evening in! You can consult the reader at your convenience - there is no need to have it with you all the time, and you don't have to use it at any particular time of the day or week."
Now, I know for couples dealing with infertility, planning and monitoring fertility is a part of daily life that most people don't even think about. BUT it REALLY ANNOYS ME that the manufacturer is GUARANTEEING a pregnancy. On the surface this totally implausible offer has the potential to lead many women, already suffering debilitating anxiety over their inability to become pregnant, to believe that if they simply monitor their fertility with this device they will magically become pregnant. If you actually read the fine print in the terms and conditions of the offer it says:
"There may be medical reasons (such as lack of ovulation) which will prevent our Products from assisting you becoming pregnant, but with which the product may assist in diagnosis."
What annoys me even more is that the company sells the product with the added bonus of free, ongoing consultation with fertility specialists. In reality, the company totally absolves themselves of responsibility:
"The consultancy services are for information purposes only, and are not a substitute for professional medical advice. Please contact your doctor before using any Product(s), particularly if you are already under medical care. Always check with your doctor if you have any concerns about your condition or treatment. We are not responsible or liable, directly or indirectly for any form of damages whatsoever resulting from the use, misuse or reliance on information contained in or implied by the information provided to you during such consultancy."
What about the psychological trauma that results from using a device with the hope that you will get pregnant and then potentially ending up with no baby after 12 months of use?
ANNOYING.
More things you don't need
Geez. Next to Tori Spelling and Nancy O'Dell, The View host, Elisabeth Hasselbeck sits high on my list of people that I would punch in the head if I saw them in the street.Reebok recently realised that they had been failing the pregnant market (more like they realised that pregnant women should be duped into spending money on shirts that say stupid things). So, like everyone else with the ability to silk screen, the athletic company has decided to release a line of football-inspired maternity tops replete with team logos (um, ew) and bad puns about pregnancy like 'kicker' and '#1 draft pick' *puke*.
Hasselbeck, now pregnant with her third child and married to a former NFL player, is modelling the line due out in stores during football season 2010. “The NFL has a tremendous amount of female fans,” Elisabeth tells WWD. “Watching a game can be a real family bonding experience, and I can tell you that the women behind the games are truly the most intense of the fans.”
Yep, Liz if I see you, make sure to duck.
Baby monitors from the future
Introducing the latest baby monitor from Philips, that among other things, promises that you will 'always feel connected with your baby'.This, my friends, is a machine from the future and I'm not sure it is good.
In effect, the thing allows you to look after your baby without having to go into its room. It has a temperature/humidity sensor, it plays lullabies, has a nightlight and allows you to talk to your baby through the in-built microphone. If your baby makes a noise, the mobile unit lights up and your are promised 24hrs of continuous cordless monitoring. I don't know about this. Sure, baby monitors are a nice convenience of the modern world but I think we have come to a strange place if parents are now totally satisfied that their children are safe and sound as long as they know the temp/humidity in the nursery are appropriate or if the baby isn't making any discernible noise. How busy can you possibly be that the 'demands of parenting' (as the advert suggests) prevent you from checking in on your baby?
Weird.
New book tell women to bond with their 'bump'
I just came across this new book, Postcards from the Bump in which the authors claim:
"Pregnant women are often advised on what to eat and how to take care of their health to nurture their developing babies. But they are rarely encouraged to get to know their unborn baby's personality. But now comes Postcards from the Bump, a guide for expectant mothers who want to bond with their babies long before they're born."
"You've got double the reason to be happy and take care of yourself because if Mommy is happy, baby is happy," Beanland says."[We suggest] going on date with your bump [baby] and kind of checking out the playground or exploring the places you're going to take your baby to once he or she gets here."
I'm sorry but this makes me insanely angry. I'm all for pregnant women having access to books that are less prescriptive (less about telling you what to do) and more about enjoying pregnancy. At the same time, however, I find it very problematic that women are encouraged or expected to think about their 'bumps' as 'babies' from the moment they conceive. As many of you would already know from having your own children, pregnancy is not always fun and games. Many women don't actually feel pregnant until they feel movement or after having an ultrasound, and even then, the idea that the thing resising in your belly will be a child one day is an extremely abstract concept and even after feeling movement, a number of women in my study told me that they still had a hard time believing that the thing moving around inside was a baby.
While I'm sure the authors of the book have nothing but good intentions, I feel like the more we focus on the hummanness of foetuses and continue to construct them as 'babies' at earlier points in pregnancy, this can lead to a slippery slope in other areas of life particularly when it comes to the rights of mothers v. the rights of foetuses (or babies, depending on what you believe). One of the reasons that abortion is so contentious, aside from the religious points of contention, has to do with the fact that as we increasingly develop more sophisticated ways in which to view foetuses with ultrasound with extremely human-like features, this has set a new precedent for understanding when foetuses are actually 'babies' or 'human'. A book like this only contributes to the fact that women should feel as though they should be bonding to their foetuses at all times and does not account for the times when pregnancy is unwanted. Besides, encouraging women to think about the baby's personality outside of the womb is also problematic considering many births do not always end in happiness. Can you imagine a woman reading this book and having a stillbirth? I think the authors give too much credit to the imprinting that takes place in the womb and not enough credit to the influences of the outside world. Babies are not 'made' in the womb, their personalities are developed through interactions with the people in the world around them.
Anyone have any thoughts? How bonded did you feel to your baby/foetus during pregnancy? Am I totally wrong?
Heelarious? I don't think so.
Yeah. I nearly choked on the vestiges of my mum's xmas biscuits when I saw these 'Heelarious' HIGH HEELS for baby girls. The style above are described thus:"Your little one will look fabulous in these soft crib shoes designed to look like high heels! Each pair of heelarious heels is packaged in a darling purse-shaped gift box, complete with a rhinestone closure. Pink patent heel with zebra satin lining for infants size 0-6 months."
Uh huh. Okay so we have already firmly established that the idea of pregnant women wearing stilettos is basically ridiculous. In fact, stilettos are pretty ridiculous for any woman with any aspiration to actually walk. And now we are looking at baby's first high heels. As if it wasn't bad enough that 11 year old girls know how to put on makeup more skillfully than most adult women or that Miley Cyrus, at 15, has a 22 yr old boyfriend and posts racy photos of herself on MySpace. The innocence of childhood for young girls (if it ever even existed) has well and truly been lost.Although wearing makeup and high heels have become rites of passage for young Western women, let's leave our baby girls alone. Babyhood, the last relic of 'innocence' and vulnerability, and until now, has been a rare time when girls don't have to worry about sucking in their stomachs, wearing jeans that are too tight or prancing around in shoes that pinch their feet.
Heelarious? I'm not laughing. Are you?
Source: http://heelarious.com/ava.php
Men don't have babies on their own
Headline: "Adam Sandler Expecting Second Child"
Does anyone else find this headline odd?
He has a wife. She is expecting their second child.
Sources: http://www.hiphop-elements.com/article/read/4/25215/1/
http://www.usmagazine.com/node/13387
http://www.usmagazine.com/node/11647
Does anyone else find this headline odd?
He has a wife. She is expecting their second child.
Sources: http://www.hiphop-elements.com/article/read/4/25215/1/
http://www.usmagazine.com/node/13387
http://www.usmagazine.com/node/11647
Another dumb warning.
Headline: Pregnant women warned on trans fats
Is there anything pregnant women haven't been warned about? Seriously.
More obvious information from the people that research things (totally exclusive of myself because clearly everything I research is highly important):
"We found that the fatty content of the babies' bodies increased when the mothers were fed the hydrogenated fat rich diet".
Ya think?
Source: http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5ig3uEjStXi1P8pUB2dl3JyYb7hcQ
Is there anything pregnant women haven't been warned about? Seriously.
More obvious information from the people that research things (totally exclusive of myself because clearly everything I research is highly important):
"We found that the fatty content of the babies' bodies increased when the mothers were fed the hydrogenated fat rich diet".
Ya think?
Source: http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5ig3uEjStXi1P8pUB2dl3JyYb7hcQ
Freebirthing rant
As I was watching the Today show this morning (Australian version), my ears perked up immediately when I heard that they were doing a segment on freebirthing..no doctors, no drugs, is it safe? as if it were a conspiracy and with the requisite mysterious music playing in the background. I have to say there was nothing in this segement that was particularly 'new' or enlightening. However, I was very interested in how they were going to 'do' this segment and I assumed correctly that of course, freebirthing was too dangerous and too risky and women who do it were basically 'too optimistic' when it comes to the horrors of labour.
Of course, they went straight to Laura Shanley who is widely respected as one of the pioneers of the freebirthing movement in the US (in fact, Laura commented on my last post about freebirthing). Her positive experiences were contrasted with an incredibly idiotic doctor who of course had to say that birth was dangerous blah blah blah and women are stupid for choosing to avoid technologised birth. Not only was his argument vague but rather than saying 'interventionist' in reference to medicalised birth kept saying 'interventionalist'. Makes me slightly worried that he was allowed to leave medical school. In the studio, Dr. Rick Gordon, the medical editor for the show, was interviewedand he is not an obstetrician or an 'expert' in pregnancy or birth and he said 'death' so many times in the segment I just started to get even more angry.
You can watch the segment on the Today show link below and read the accompanying article. I think it would be great if women who have had homebirths or freebirths would write in about their positive experiences to the network and overwhelm them with responses because this was a completely one-sided story.
Email: today@nine.com.au
Source: http://today.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=417872
Of course, they went straight to Laura Shanley who is widely respected as one of the pioneers of the freebirthing movement in the US (in fact, Laura commented on my last post about freebirthing). Her positive experiences were contrasted with an incredibly idiotic doctor who of course had to say that birth was dangerous blah blah blah and women are stupid for choosing to avoid technologised birth. Not only was his argument vague but rather than saying 'interventionist' in reference to medicalised birth kept saying 'interventionalist'. Makes me slightly worried that he was allowed to leave medical school. In the studio, Dr. Rick Gordon, the medical editor for the show, was interviewedand he is not an obstetrician or an 'expert' in pregnancy or birth and he said 'death' so many times in the segment I just started to get even more angry.
You can watch the segment on the Today show link below and read the accompanying article. I think it would be great if women who have had homebirths or freebirths would write in about their positive experiences to the network and overwhelm them with responses because this was a completely one-sided story.
Email: today@nine.com.au
Source: http://today.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=417872
'Girlie Gowns' have landed
Argh. Just when I bagged J.Lo for having custom-made hospital gowns, some clever woman is now capitalising on the trend by producing 'Girlie' gowns for birth because, as she says, 'your delivery should be girly and not grungy'. These gowns have the exact same cut and embarassing open flaps at the back as the standard hospital gowns:
"The top half of the back is open (got to be accessible for that epidural, right?)"
Is an open flap for an epidural really a selling point? I'm not EVEN going to go there.
Nevertheless, they are charging $49(!) for a bloody piece of fabric that has polka dots and ribbon. Seriously!
If you were so concerned about wearing a hospital gown, wouldn't you choose to not wear one at all? Or to wear your own clothes? Why would you participate in such a ridiculous hospital ritual by having a friggin monogrammed gown?
Having a baby is one of the few times in a woman's life when she shouldn't have to worry about how she looks.
Birth is not an event in which women need another reason to buy a new outfit.
Source: www.girliegowns.com
"The top half of the back is open (got to be accessible for that epidural, right?)"
Is an open flap for an epidural really a selling point? I'm not EVEN going to go there.
Nevertheless, they are charging $49(!) for a bloody piece of fabric that has polka dots and ribbon. Seriously!
If you were so concerned about wearing a hospital gown, wouldn't you choose to not wear one at all? Or to wear your own clothes? Why would you participate in such a ridiculous hospital ritual by having a friggin monogrammed gown?
Having a baby is one of the few times in a woman's life when she shouldn't have to worry about how she looks.
Birth is not an event in which women need another reason to buy a new outfit.
Source: www.girliegowns.com
Uterus news
Word on the street has it that Angelina Jolie is looking to 'sell' her twin pregnancy story to the highest bidder. Christina Aguilera is set to make $1.5 million from Ok! for the first photos of her son and Nicole Richie is to earn $1 million for photos of Harlow.An open letter to all of the celebrities who are pregnant or are thinking about getting pregnant anytime soon:
As part of the tabloid reading public, I am sick and tired of you farming out the contents of your uteruses to the global media for millions of dollars before your belly even starts to have a hint of swell. Sure, you say, it's all going to charity, you're doing this 'for the children', blah blah blah. Wake up and smell the new millenium. Everyone loves a good baby cover story but don't you think selling your baby's image before he/she even develops the ability to hold their head upright is just wrong?
You complain that the paparazzi are constantly following you; that you can't go out to the supermarket without having your photo taken; that you feel like a prisoner of your fame and fortune. Yet, you sell the most private moments of your 'perfect' family to every gossip-loving mag hag in the free world! Since when did motherhood become an opportunity to make a cool mill? Has the new baby cover shot become a replacement for paid maternity leave?
Let's face it. Just because you are a celebrity, doesn't mean that motherhood won't be overwhelming. Sure you have nannies and drivers and trainers to help you 'bounce' back but fame will not save you from the baby blues, or even worse postnatal depression or feeling like the person you were before baby is lost forever. Seeing you pose on the magazine covers, so sweet and 'happy' with your 'motherhood is amazing'-isms makes my teeth hurt because any mother will tell you (and you probably know this already), motherhood changes you forever and it's not an easy ride. So forget about posing and preening for the camera. Save your baby's retinas from the blinding camera flashbulbs and just be a mother out of the spotlight. Your children will thank you for it some day.
Caffeine: birth control in a cup
Caffeine is the latest form of ‘birth control in a cup’. It has been suggested that coffee drinking both before and during pregnancy primes fetuses for a cascade of physical problems later in life but in the last few days a new study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology suggests that just two cups of coffee per day can double the risk of miscarriage.
Pregnant women should try to give up caffeine for at least the first three or four months, said the lead author of the study, Dr. De-Kun Li, a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist at the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Oakland, Calif.
Whereas earlier 200mg of caffeine was deemed to be 'safe' in pregnancy, now pregnant women are asked to completely avoid caffeine to miminise their risk. I hate this. The advice to pregnant women is just another instance of social control: either follow medical advice or risk your baby’s life. I would take this study lightly, at best. Interviewing women following a miscarriage is sketchy and also just bad science. Moreover, the causes of miscarriage are still largely unknown and 'good' mothers are supposed to be altruistic, putting the needs of the fetus above their own.
Dr. Carolyn Westhoff, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology, and epidemiology, at Columbia University Medical Centre sees this study as another scare tactic:
"Moderation in all things is still an excellent rule,” Dr. Westhoff said. “I think we tend to go overboard on saying expose your body to zero anything when pregnant. The human race wouldn’t have succeeded if the early pregnancy was so vulnerable to a little bit of anything. We’re more robust than that.”
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/health/21caffeine.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Pregnant women should try to give up caffeine for at least the first three or four months, said the lead author of the study, Dr. De-Kun Li, a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist at the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Oakland, Calif.
Whereas earlier 200mg of caffeine was deemed to be 'safe' in pregnancy, now pregnant women are asked to completely avoid caffeine to miminise their risk. I hate this. The advice to pregnant women is just another instance of social control: either follow medical advice or risk your baby’s life. I would take this study lightly, at best. Interviewing women following a miscarriage is sketchy and also just bad science. Moreover, the causes of miscarriage are still largely unknown and 'good' mothers are supposed to be altruistic, putting the needs of the fetus above their own.
Dr. Carolyn Westhoff, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology, and epidemiology, at Columbia University Medical Centre sees this study as another scare tactic:
"Moderation in all things is still an excellent rule,” Dr. Westhoff said. “I think we tend to go overboard on saying expose your body to zero anything when pregnant. The human race wouldn’t have succeeded if the early pregnancy was so vulnerable to a little bit of anything. We’re more robust than that.”
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/health/21caffeine.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
A little bump in the road.
I never thought I would say this.
I feel saturated. Fully and utterly saturated. As of this week, it feels like pregnancy and birth are the only things left for the media to talk about. Whereas I used to get a little rush reading about the latest pregnant celeb, seeing the snaps of her belly in a tight maternity top or delighting in stories about weight gain, for some reason this week, pregnancy in the news is no longer exciting. From someone who lives and breathes pregnancy (without actually being pregnant), this is a very bizarre turn of events.
I've been trying to work out why celeb pregnancy hasn't been doing it for me lately. Is it just the latest crop of preggos that I find to be utterly boring? Is it possible that I have read too many tabloids for one lifetime? Then it occurred to me. Pregnancy is now a career booster for celebrities and the birth of a child is treated like an 'event' rather than a private family affair. More than 400 articles are devoted to the 'birth' of Christina Aguilera's son whom she had by elective caesarean (which is not mentioned anywhere). For someone who claimed she did not want to have the media involved in her pregnancy by sheepishly failing to 'announce' that she was knocked up, that she and her husband sent decided to send out a press release just undermines the 'privacy' she was supposedly trying to achieve. Why would she do that? Because pregnancy and motherhood are clearly boons to the careers of celebrity women and it would be a mistake not to cash in on the tabloid baby showers.
Now that all of these celebs are pregnant (I hesitate to even give a complete list it has grown so spectacularly in the last few months), pregnancy is an PR exercise. No one is willing to say how they really feel and every pregnant celebrity, it seems, feels the need to pay lip service to 'good' motherhood. I swear if I read if one more celeb using the words 'wonderful' or 'amazing' to describe her pregnancy, I think I will hurl. When Halle Berry recently said she wished she could be pregnant 'forever', it was like nails grinding on a chalkboard. Nicole Kidman is 'thrilled' to be pregnant along with the rest of the world as the 600th rumour about her non-existent baby bump has finally come true and no doubt, motherhood at 40 will eclipse all of her independent achievements to date.
I'm just over it. What happened to the frank pregnant confessions of both elation and utter disgruntlement? I'm so sick of celebrity women going on about how great and easy pregnancy is and lapping up the adulation for daring to be naked and pregnant on a magazine cover when only last week it was decided that British mother Louise Manning is set to win up to £200,000
because she was harassed so profoundly at work. Forced to resign when she revealed she was pregnant, Manning's boss sent a memo stating:
"Louise’s pregnancy has quite naturally had an adverse effect on her ability, motivation and dedication."
Mothering is not easy and for many companies, pregnancy is the WORST career move a woman could ever make.
This is the world we live in. It's not all designer prams and expensive birthing suites. Average women, it seems, have to quite literally fight for their 'right' to have a career during pregnancy. Surely the birth of a child is a major life achievement for any woman but quite often it comes at the expense of her ability to achieve a work/life balance. The celebrities who rave about how easy pregnancy is completely undermine the everyday realities that most women face trying to juggle a family with a career or even in staying at home without the luxury of a nanny or a chef.
Source: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article3176474.ece
I feel saturated. Fully and utterly saturated. As of this week, it feels like pregnancy and birth are the only things left for the media to talk about. Whereas I used to get a little rush reading about the latest pregnant celeb, seeing the snaps of her belly in a tight maternity top or delighting in stories about weight gain, for some reason this week, pregnancy in the news is no longer exciting. From someone who lives and breathes pregnancy (without actually being pregnant), this is a very bizarre turn of events.
I've been trying to work out why celeb pregnancy hasn't been doing it for me lately. Is it just the latest crop of preggos that I find to be utterly boring? Is it possible that I have read too many tabloids for one lifetime? Then it occurred to me. Pregnancy is now a career booster for celebrities and the birth of a child is treated like an 'event' rather than a private family affair. More than 400 articles are devoted to the 'birth' of Christina Aguilera's son whom she had by elective caesarean (which is not mentioned anywhere). For someone who claimed she did not want to have the media involved in her pregnancy by sheepishly failing to 'announce' that she was knocked up, that she and her husband sent decided to send out a press release just undermines the 'privacy' she was supposedly trying to achieve. Why would she do that? Because pregnancy and motherhood are clearly boons to the careers of celebrity women and it would be a mistake not to cash in on the tabloid baby showers.
Now that all of these celebs are pregnant (I hesitate to even give a complete list it has grown so spectacularly in the last few months), pregnancy is an PR exercise. No one is willing to say how they really feel and every pregnant celebrity, it seems, feels the need to pay lip service to 'good' motherhood. I swear if I read if one more celeb using the words 'wonderful' or 'amazing' to describe her pregnancy, I think I will hurl. When Halle Berry recently said she wished she could be pregnant 'forever', it was like nails grinding on a chalkboard. Nicole Kidman is 'thrilled' to be pregnant along with the rest of the world as the 600th rumour about her non-existent baby bump has finally come true and no doubt, motherhood at 40 will eclipse all of her independent achievements to date.
I'm just over it. What happened to the frank pregnant confessions of both elation and utter disgruntlement? I'm so sick of celebrity women going on about how great and easy pregnancy is and lapping up the adulation for daring to be naked and pregnant on a magazine cover when only last week it was decided that British mother Louise Manning is set to win up to £200,000
because she was harassed so profoundly at work. Forced to resign when she revealed she was pregnant, Manning's boss sent a memo stating:
"Louise’s pregnancy has quite naturally had an adverse effect on her ability, motivation and dedication."
Mothering is not easy and for many companies, pregnancy is the WORST career move a woman could ever make.
This is the world we live in. It's not all designer prams and expensive birthing suites. Average women, it seems, have to quite literally fight for their 'right' to have a career during pregnancy. Surely the birth of a child is a major life achievement for any woman but quite often it comes at the expense of her ability to achieve a work/life balance. The celebrities who rave about how easy pregnancy is completely undermine the everyday realities that most women face trying to juggle a family with a career or even in staying at home without the luxury of a nanny or a chef.
Source: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article3176474.ece
Birth: censored
I found this ad for a Sony Handycam in the Herald Sun Sunday magazine and I've been meaning to analyse it here because of the way it blatantly sanitises birth, presenting an experience of birth that is so stereotypical and traditional, it hurts my eyes to look at it.
I apologise if the image is difficult to see but in sum, Sony's selling point for this new video camera is that 'it captures everything'. At the bottom of the ad, it says:
'...you'll never miss any of life's precious moments'
and of course birth is supposed to be one of those moments. Anyway, this is what bothers me about this ad. The birthing woman is obviously Anglo and blonde, a stock-standard image of a 'normal' middle-class woman who is giving birth in a hospital. Her ostensibly male partner is filming the birth with his trusty Sony handycam. She is on her back in a hospital bed which is so far removed from a typical contemporary birthing experience. I don't know what you think, but most women I know and that I have interviewed definitely did not give birth lying on their back in a hospital gown covered with a sheet to hide her body.
Straight away, the ad conveys a message that birth is something that should be hidden and women's reproductive bodies are chaotic and in need of medical management. You might think I'm being pedantic but what really annoys me is the middle frame which says 'CENSORED": the frame which is supposed to show the birth of this women's child. The frame before the black one shows her 'pushing' and the one after is a blood-free perfect baby. Yet, the moment the baby emerges from her body is CENSORED because birth is clearly too offensive for the innocent eyes of the consumer. The baby is perfectly clean, there is no umbilical cord and no placenta. Everything particularly 'grotesque' about birth is sanitised for popular visual consumption.
This ad reminds me of those ridiculous tampon and pad advertisements which demonstrate the absorbency of a particular product with some bizarre blue liquid. GOD FORBID advertisers use a red liquid because menstrual blood is..well..red. I find it really offensive that women's reproductive bodies are used in both of these cases to sell products but made 'clean' by advertising in order to be sellable. Women's bodies are commodified for the gain of a huge corporation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)