Sometimes I'm embarassed to be American.
New stats shows that teenage pregnancy has risen for the first time in 15 years thanks to George W.'s brilliant idea to cut funding for sex education programs in American schools only to replace them with 'abstinence only' programs. Under pressure from various evangelical organisations, George W. has successfully spent $176 million per year on abstinence education, allowing 435,000 babies to be born last year to mothers between the ages of 15-19.
Not only does the birth of a child compromise the ability of a young woman's ability to finish school, the cuts made to sex education funding in American high schools put millions of young Americans at risk of contracting STD's, including HIV and completely undermine the work of hundreds of women's organisations that worked tirelessly throughout the 90s to get the teenage pregnancy rate down to some of its lowest levels in American history. According to the Guttmacher Institute, one in three American teenagers receives no education about birth control. This is a statistic that should take your breath away.
I've raised a number of discussions in this blog about delayed childbearing and how in a number of ways, women having babies at 35 or 40 positively influences motherhood. Establishing a career, getting an education and becoming financially independent are just a few of the many factors that make women better mothers. We cannot rely on parents to teach young Americans about sex. All of the studies show that the most successful sex education happens in schools. The cuts to funding invariably affect poor and minority young women in America who are without the resources that middle-class, white Americans have a better chance of getting hold of. The president of Planned Parenthood says it best:
"The United States is facing a teen-pregnancy health-care crisis, and the national policy of abstinence-only programs just isn't working," said Cecile Richard, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "It is time for everyone who cares about teenagers to start focusing on the common-sense solutions that will help solve this problem."
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2223667,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/05/AR2007120501208.html?hpid=sec-nation
Pregnancy is apparently a 'medical condition'
"Mom-to-be Nicole Ritchie has been granted a leave of absence from her court-mandated anti-drinking program, her rep confirms to People. The program suggested the Simple Life star take a leave because they were worried for her safety, according to her rep. "They offer that option to anyone with a medical condition of any kind," the rep says. "She is not receiving special treatment.""
They are worried about her 'safety'? Interesting.
1) Why is pregnancy considered a medical condition? I thought we were sitting comfortably in an era where pregnancy is sexy and glamourous and definitely not a condition to be hidden or represented as 'clinical' in popular culture.
2) How does being pregnant hinder Nicole from going to counselling or sitting in a class room for drug/alcohol education? Wouldn't you think that have a mother-to-be with a demonstrated history of drug/alcohol abuse and who has served time in jail would benefit from some preventive measures to keep her from re-indulging in old habits?
Source: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20164577,00.html
They are worried about her 'safety'? Interesting.
1) Why is pregnancy considered a medical condition? I thought we were sitting comfortably in an era where pregnancy is sexy and glamourous and definitely not a condition to be hidden or represented as 'clinical' in popular culture.
2) How does being pregnant hinder Nicole from going to counselling or sitting in a class room for drug/alcohol education? Wouldn't you think that have a mother-to-be with a demonstrated history of drug/alcohol abuse and who has served time in jail would benefit from some preventive measures to keep her from re-indulging in old habits?
Source: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20164577,00.html
Celebrity yummy mummies
Hmm...Isn't this a coincidence? Sounds alot like my research which has been heavily publicised in three countries......
WOMEN are increasingly concerned about their shape and weight during pregnancy, partly due to the media's focus on celebrity yummy mummies, experts say. Psychologist Beth Shelton from Swinburne University said there seems to be “strong, unwritten social rules” about how much weight is acceptable to gain, where that weight goes and how long it takes to lose it after the baby is born.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22874688-1702,00.html
This particular researcher only followed 13 women (which they don't mention in any of the articles)....I did more than 200 interviews with 40 women.
*Sigh*
WOMEN are increasingly concerned about their shape and weight during pregnancy, partly due to the media's focus on celebrity yummy mummies, experts say. Psychologist Beth Shelton from Swinburne University said there seems to be “strong, unwritten social rules” about how much weight is acceptable to gain, where that weight goes and how long it takes to lose it after the baby is born.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22874688-1702,00.html
This particular researcher only followed 13 women (which they don't mention in any of the articles)....I did more than 200 interviews with 40 women.
*Sigh*
Pregnant and naked, just like Christina
Well it didn't take long for a a newspaper to try and get pregnant women to reprise Christina's pregnant spread (which hits newsstands 16 December). The Sun interviews each of the women pictured about their pregnant bodies, gaining weight and how they feel about Aguilera's centrefold.
I have to say that the amount of press Christina's magazine cover has generated is not surprising but it's a bit of a shame. When the magazine comes out, there will be no joy...everyone has seen all of the photos everyday for the last week. I would have much preferred to walk into a shop, see the magazine cover, get all excited and purchase it immediately, if not sooner. I will still purchase the mag but pregnant and naked is a little overdone these days.
Check out the pregnant profiles here: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/article544840.ece
Cate Blanchett and her 'bump'
As we have known for awhile now, actress Cate Blanchett is pregnant. Photographed at the premiere of her new movie, I'm Not Here, Blanchett's bump is finally visible in this body-hugging dress coupled with sky-high stillettos. According to The Daily Mail, Blanchett's outward fertility coupled with her sexy footwear was unseemly:
"The five inch heels appeared to be more suited to the Manolo loving Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica-Parker) of Sex and the City, rather than a expectant mother."
I find this comment so bizarre. The global media is obsessed with pregnant women. The 'yummy mummy' is an identity that has linked sex and motherhood inextricably. We have seen pictures of Katie Price bearing her belly in mini-skirts and platform shoes, pregnant women of all sorts wearing tightly fitting tops that reveal a blooming belly and a whole range of hipster maternity jeans and fancy maternity lingerie that allow pregnant women to still feel sexy and glamorous in pregnancy. This is nothing new; yet, Cate Blanchett wearing a pair of stilettos is still somehow a confronting image for this particular journalist. What is it about stilettos that is so 'un-mother'? After all, pregnancy is the most visible representation of a sexed body that a woman can ever have. Being visibly pregnant is a firm indication that a woman has had sex. As stilettos are famous for their association with raunchy bedroom antics, porn and anything else even remotely titillating, the idea that a pregnant woman wearing them is somehow antithetical to imagery of an 'expectant mother' is probably correct on some level historically but totally detached from the culture of popular media that celebrates sexy pregnant women (Hello, Maxim?!)
The Daily Mail itself is a 'newspaper' (if you can call it that) that prides itself on dishing on pregnant women, commenting on maternity fashion and criticising pregnant celebrities when they don't look glamorous enough.
Older mums a 'risky' trend: a problem of biology or society?
Seriously (how many posts have I started with a *sigh* and a 'seriously' lately?) why do American obstetricians make it so difficult for women to be pregnant and give birth safely these days?
Women who are 'young' (in teens/20s) are consistently represented as welfare queens and 'bad' mothers. Celebrities are increasingly the only representation of motherhood accessible to everyday women in popular culture. And now, as always, 'older' mothers are copping flak for selfishly wanting to fall pregnant and actual give birth vaginally when they are over 40. I find this particular issue incredibly disturbing. According to the Los Angeles Times, pregnancies to women over 40 has increased threefold in California as a result of middle-class women's access to fertility treatments. In the words of one fertility specialist:
"Women begin to have fertility problems about 10 to 15 years before they experience menopause, Rodi said. The average age of menopause is 50 to 52, but it can range from 40 to 60. Women have no way of knowing for sure at what point in the spectrum they'll fall"
I'm not denying the statistical risks associated with later childbearing. A range of studies have shown that certain complications are more likely to arise when women give birth later in life. However, I find it particularly offensive that all of these articles being fired off in the media about 'older' mothers are generally not related to the welfare or well-being of 'older' mothers pre and postnatally. Rather, these articles position women over 40 as taking a gamble on bodies that, according to biomedicine, are no longer reproductively valuable. The whole industry (and yes, it is an industry) of infertility is reliant upon women who are told that as soon as they hit the age of 35, the egg factory will be invariably shutting up shop. As the quote above suggests, women must be aware of their fertility from the moment they begin to menstruate and are encouraged to have children early in life so as to circumvent any unforeseen 'problems' later on, as a sort of reproductive 'insurance' policy. The overriding message is that if you wait too long, you can find yourself with a 'barren womb' and it is nobody's fault but your own.
I think it's interesting that nowhere in the LA Times article does anyone specifically address (as I have said many times before) the specific cultural/economic/historical shifts that have provided women with positive opportunities to be active in the public, to have fulfilling careers and to not be resigned to the domestic if they don't want to be. As I have found in my own research with pregnant women over 40, these women have spent half of their lifetimes establishing their own identities, independence and a career. By the time they are 40, having a child seems right despite the associated 'risks'. Why fault women for finally making themselves happy? I thought we had evolved past the women-as-baby-making-machines metaphor that has so deeply embedded itself in American biomedical directives. In fact, the reason why women are 'waiting' so much longer as the media suggests is implicitly tied to working. New Canadian research shows women over 40 are often more likely to forego maternity leave because they have made huge investments in their professional lives; many of these women do not even take the majority of the materity leave to which they are entitled because they are so fearful of the real consequences of taking time off and losing a corporate edge.
Adrienne ten Cate, a senior researcher with Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, has found that the more educated, well-compensated and high-ranking the woman, the less maternity leave she takes. "There's a U-curve, where women in low-level positions can't afford to take time off," she says, "and women at the high end return early for fear of forgoing promotions, wage increases and other opportunities."
Perhaps if the culture of working changed and women were not at the nexus of the work/life balance, delayed childbearing would not be such an issue. The truth is most workplaces are still extremely unsupportive of motherhood and women have to constantly negotiate the demands of motherhood and working without an infrastructure for support. Billable hours, long working days and women performing 'like men' are staid features of the American workplace.
Sources: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-oldmoms3dec03,0,6600732.story?coll=la-home-local
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-banks4dec04,1,4364409.column?coll=la-util-news-local&ctrack=1&cset=true
http://www.financialpost.com/magazine/story.html?id=130063
Women who are 'young' (in teens/20s) are consistently represented as welfare queens and 'bad' mothers. Celebrities are increasingly the only representation of motherhood accessible to everyday women in popular culture. And now, as always, 'older' mothers are copping flak for selfishly wanting to fall pregnant and actual give birth vaginally when they are over 40. I find this particular issue incredibly disturbing. According to the Los Angeles Times, pregnancies to women over 40 has increased threefold in California as a result of middle-class women's access to fertility treatments. In the words of one fertility specialist:
"Women begin to have fertility problems about 10 to 15 years before they experience menopause, Rodi said. The average age of menopause is 50 to 52, but it can range from 40 to 60. Women have no way of knowing for sure at what point in the spectrum they'll fall"
I'm not denying the statistical risks associated with later childbearing. A range of studies have shown that certain complications are more likely to arise when women give birth later in life. However, I find it particularly offensive that all of these articles being fired off in the media about 'older' mothers are generally not related to the welfare or well-being of 'older' mothers pre and postnatally. Rather, these articles position women over 40 as taking a gamble on bodies that, according to biomedicine, are no longer reproductively valuable. The whole industry (and yes, it is an industry) of infertility is reliant upon women who are told that as soon as they hit the age of 35, the egg factory will be invariably shutting up shop. As the quote above suggests, women must be aware of their fertility from the moment they begin to menstruate and are encouraged to have children early in life so as to circumvent any unforeseen 'problems' later on, as a sort of reproductive 'insurance' policy. The overriding message is that if you wait too long, you can find yourself with a 'barren womb' and it is nobody's fault but your own.
I think it's interesting that nowhere in the LA Times article does anyone specifically address (as I have said many times before) the specific cultural/economic/historical shifts that have provided women with positive opportunities to be active in the public, to have fulfilling careers and to not be resigned to the domestic if they don't want to be. As I have found in my own research with pregnant women over 40, these women have spent half of their lifetimes establishing their own identities, independence and a career. By the time they are 40, having a child seems right despite the associated 'risks'. Why fault women for finally making themselves happy? I thought we had evolved past the women-as-baby-making-machines metaphor that has so deeply embedded itself in American biomedical directives. In fact, the reason why women are 'waiting' so much longer as the media suggests is implicitly tied to working. New Canadian research shows women over 40 are often more likely to forego maternity leave because they have made huge investments in their professional lives; many of these women do not even take the majority of the materity leave to which they are entitled because they are so fearful of the real consequences of taking time off and losing a corporate edge.
Adrienne ten Cate, a senior researcher with Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, has found that the more educated, well-compensated and high-ranking the woman, the less maternity leave she takes. "There's a U-curve, where women in low-level positions can't afford to take time off," she says, "and women at the high end return early for fear of forgoing promotions, wage increases and other opportunities."
Perhaps if the culture of working changed and women were not at the nexus of the work/life balance, delayed childbearing would not be such an issue. The truth is most workplaces are still extremely unsupportive of motherhood and women have to constantly negotiate the demands of motherhood and working without an infrastructure for support. Billable hours, long working days and women performing 'like men' are staid features of the American workplace.
Sources: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-oldmoms3dec03,0,6600732.story?coll=la-home-local
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-banks4dec04,1,4364409.column?coll=la-util-news-local&ctrack=1&cset=true
http://www.financialpost.com/magazine/story.html?id=130063
Pushed (or all of the reasons why having a baby in America is scary)
Well it has been a few days since my last post and please excuse, I've been in Washington DC for the American Anthropological Association Conference to present a paper 'From Bump to Baby: Gazing at the Fetus in 4D' as part of a panel on 'Technologies of Surveillance'. Now that I'm back in Chicago, here are some thoughts:Firstly, I had the (dis)pleasure of reading 'Pushed: The Painful Truth About Childbirth and Modern Maternity Care' by Jennifer Block over the last two days. This is a well-researched and thoroughly read-able piece which is definitely worth the time, but be prepared to be absolutely shocked and appalled (I definitely was!) at the state of the current American maternity system. I can tell you, as someone who does not have any children, the thought of having a baby in America today is so incredibly scary as I sat on the plane reading about 'elective' caesareans, the blackmarket for midwives, VBAC, and the absolutely ludicrous recommendations against homebirth by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), my mouth was actually agape as I read true stories of women in America who have had every ounce of 'choice' taken away from them in a hospital.
Perhaps I have been lulled into a fall sense of security or even idealism in studying the Australian maternity system (which is not perfect by any means). However, the Australian system relies heavily on midwives, women have the choice to give birth at home or in a family birth clinic and of course, there is universal health care. Although the caesarean rate is still extremely high in Australia as it is in America, in my own research the constant use of fetal monitors, giving birth in the lithotomy position (on your back) against gravity, and being at the mercy of doctors who will induce you at the drop of a hat, are oppressive medical rituals that the Australian system has mostly evolved past.
Even more shocking for me was Block's mention that American women's rights groups have not taken any significant action with regard to pregnancy rights, particularly when it comes to VBAC. Block notes the National Organization for Women (NOW), the Center for Reproductive Rights, the National Women's Health Network, and even Planned Parenthood have not been willingly to fight for women to have vaginal births after caesar, for example; the same organisations which have fought for birth control have been staunch in their refusal to address the idea that women are being coerced into major abdominal surgery mostly because of insurance issues (pp.260-1)
As Block argues, the state of pre and postnatal care in America is edging on public health crisis. A woman who has not done extensive research, is confident in her choices, and has people in her life to support her, and is not white or middle-class has very little chance of achieving the birth that she wants without significant medical intervention.
Has anyone else read this book? What are your thoughts? Did your experience of birth become medicalised without your consent?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)