I'm a member of an online forum for doulas. Recently, a woman posted about a scenario she and her family are dealing with and wanted advice.
Here's the deal: she and her husband have been trying to get pregnant for two years now. They've tried everything short of IVF, which they are against for personal and moral reasons. In the past year, she has become pregnant twice, only to miscarry at 5 weeks and again at 11 weeks. All of her siblings (I think she has three sisters) have kids, and they always have the whole extended family gathered on Thanksgiving and Christmas.
A few weeks ago, during the family's Thanksgiving party, a number of older relatives asked her, "Now when are you two going to have a baby?" It became so persistent that she had to excuse herself for the bulk of the afternoon. None of the family knew she had been trying and having miscarriages. It was so heart-breaking for her and her husband that they are considering not even joining the family this Christmas.
Now I can see a number of people thinking she's being overly-sensitive, or that we can't fault her family for upsetting her, as they didn't know about her difficulty getting and staying pregnant. However, being the kind of person who believes that there's no right or wrong way to feel about infertility/pregnancy/pregnancy loss, I think this woman has every right to be emotionally drained from the constant reminder that she's the odd one out in the child department, and not by choice. Additionally, I can't fully excuse the family simply because they didn't know she was having trouble.
See, I'm a firm believer that the decision to have a baby is no one else's damn business. Even if this particular woman hadn't been experiencing fertility problems, I would still find fault in the constant prying into her personal life. They had no idea that their questioning would take such an emotional toll, true, but I don't even think we should even be asking these kinds of questions out of the blue like that.
I experience this kind of thing in my own life, though I wouldn't have the same emotional response, as I am neither having fertility problems nor am I trying to get pregnant. It might well seem like a harmless question, "Are you planning on having a baby any time soon?" But I just don't see it that way, and I think the knee-jerk assumption that a couple will be procreating after a few years of marriage is in and of itself problematic.
There is nothing more personal than the decision to bring a new life into the world, and you'd think the act by which pregnancy occurs would be personal enough to keep distant relatives from asking about it. A mother or father wanting to know, in confidence, if you and your partner are planning on having a family of your own is one thing, but having an aunt or distant cousin who you only see once a year come up and ask whether or not you're having unprotected sex is a bit odd, don't you think?
And what are they expecting the answer to be? "Oh yes, Grandma, we're planning on trying at the start of the new year." That just seems weird to me. You might as well be saying, "During my next cycle, I will be monitoring my cervical mucus and, when the time is right, I will be having sex with your grandson/nephew/cousin with the intention of soaking up his seed." Not exactly the conversation you want to have over pecan pie.
If a couple wants to have a baby, it's really no one else's damn business until they choose to make it so. The fact of the matter is, many couples experience difficulty conceiving, and many others miscarry early on. Asking about if/when you'll be having a baby is liable to trigger difficult emotional responses, and let's face it, who really needs that during the holidays? And if a couple doesn't ever want a kid {gasp!}, that's also no one's business. You wouldn't ask parents why they chose to adopt, so why would you ask a woman why she's not pregnant?
I'm sure I'll hear much of it this year. Charlie and I are "next in line" for pregnancy in his family (all the other married siblings and cousins have new babies), and everyone in my family is itching for a grandchild/great-grandchild. I'm just thankful I'm not experiencing any sort of infertility or pregnancy issues that could make those questions loaded. But that doesn't change the fact that my sex life is no one else's business, nor is my decision to get pregnant or remain childless.
It just seems like there's other things we could be talking about... Charlie and I both have had very big years career-wise, but I somehow doubt that will be what people want to hear about.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Birthing Against the Grain
The following was originally posted at ChoiceUSA's Choice Words blog.
--------------------------------------------------
CNN featured a story today about Aneka, a woman who recently gave birth to her fourth child, vaginally and at home, after previously enduring three cesarean births. Apparently her obstetrician had told her that her pelvis was "too small" to deliver vaginally, and, after her first cesarean, she continued birthing surgically because she was told that was what she had to do.
For her forth child, the obstetrician scheduled a cesarean, but Aneka never showed. Since seven months gestation, she had been researching vaginal birth after cesarean, or VBAC. And, due to her area's hospitals not supporting VBACs and her doctor's suggestion for yet another cesarean, Aneka chose to give birth at home under the care of a midwife. The birth resulted in a healthy 9 pound baby, born vaginally after only four minutes of pushing. (Small pelvis my ass.)
CNN offers dueling perspectives on the matter: some in the medical establishment believe Aneka's actions were "irresponsible" and dangerous, while birth advocates applaud her as a hero of the birth movement.
The home birth vs. hospital birth, VBAC vs. repeat cesarean debate is ongoing, with more and more evidence surfacing to suggest that a) home birth is as safe as hospital birth, assuming the woman does not experience major complications and is under the care of a midwife, and b) attempting a VBAC is safer than repeat cesarean, which is a major abdominal surgery that lengthens recovery time and often acts as an affront to breastfeeding.
But what concerns me about this story most is not the fact that this woman couldn't be better supported in her choices, or that she had to endure three cesareans before she found out that her body could give birth on its own, or even that it paints home birth as more dangerous than it is. What concerns me most is the public opinion surrounding Aneka's situation as evidenced by the article's comments. From the peanut gallery:
Never mind that this particular woman's birthing experience ended positively, or that most home birth experiences end that same way. No, Aneka was defiant and therefore is an idiot. She's irresponsible. She "could have" endangered her child's life by not listening to the doctor. In other words, women should do what they're told with their bodies, and besides, women need to stop thinking about what they want and just think about the baby (sound familiar?).
Even more troubling, many of the comments don't focus on stupidity; they focus, not surprisingly, on the number of children this Black woman has:
So, in conclusion:
--------------------------------------------------
CNN featured a story today about Aneka, a woman who recently gave birth to her fourth child, vaginally and at home, after previously enduring three cesarean births. Apparently her obstetrician had told her that her pelvis was "too small" to deliver vaginally, and, after her first cesarean, she continued birthing surgically because she was told that was what she had to do.
For her forth child, the obstetrician scheduled a cesarean, but Aneka never showed. Since seven months gestation, she had been researching vaginal birth after cesarean, or VBAC. And, due to her area's hospitals not supporting VBACs and her doctor's suggestion for yet another cesarean, Aneka chose to give birth at home under the care of a midwife. The birth resulted in a healthy 9 pound baby, born vaginally after only four minutes of pushing. (Small pelvis my ass.)
CNN offers dueling perspectives on the matter: some in the medical establishment believe Aneka's actions were "irresponsible" and dangerous, while birth advocates applaud her as a hero of the birth movement.
The home birth vs. hospital birth, VBAC vs. repeat cesarean debate is ongoing, with more and more evidence surfacing to suggest that a) home birth is as safe as hospital birth, assuming the woman does not experience major complications and is under the care of a midwife, and b) attempting a VBAC is safer than repeat cesarean, which is a major abdominal surgery that lengthens recovery time and often acts as an affront to breastfeeding.
But what concerns me about this story most is not the fact that this woman couldn't be better supported in her choices, or that she had to endure three cesareans before she found out that her body could give birth on its own, or even that it paints home birth as more dangerous than it is. What concerns me most is the public opinion surrounding Aneka's situation as evidenced by the article's comments. From the peanut gallery:
"Wow, talk about stupid. She got lucky, it really wouldn't have hurt her to go and have that c-section just to be safe. Well, I guess it's her decision. I'm just happy the baby didn't die because of her risk taking."
"I love the 'it's a woman's choice' line of thinking. What about the father (husband or not)? What about the baby?"
"This woman is a fool!"
"Who was she more concerned about, herself and her 'birth experience', or the risks to her baby?"
Never mind that this particular woman's birthing experience ended positively, or that most home birth experiences end that same way. No, Aneka was defiant and therefore is an idiot. She's irresponsible. She "could have" endangered her child's life by not listening to the doctor. In other words, women should do what they're told with their bodies, and besides, women need to stop thinking about what they want and just think about the baby (sound familiar?).
Even more troubling, many of the comments don't focus on stupidity; they focus, not surprisingly, on the number of children this Black woman has:
"I just hope she stops feeding her need to breed! Plus, she was really stupid."
"YOU HAVE 4 ALREADY! FIND THE OFF BUTTON! AND ALL YOU IDIOTS CRYING ABOUT MEXICANS AND THEIR KIDS, LOOK RIGHT HERE! THIS IS WHATS TRULY WRONG IN THIS COUNTRY TODAY, NOBODY NEEDS 5, 6 , 7 KIDS, THTS [sic] JUST NUTS...."
"Newsflash: She's an entitled black person."
So, in conclusion:
- A woman who makes an informed decision to switch to the care of a midwife after her scalpel-happy OB pushes cesarean surgery is "defiant."
- It's irresponsible to worry about having positive birthing experiences; all that matters is that the baby gets out alive.
- Women should never, ever have more children than the public thinks you should have, especially women of color.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
A Farewell to Arms, or something
I've gotten so tired of aggression. It wears you out over time.
Though there were clear problems raised by the well-attended "Rally To Restore Fear and/or Sanity," the way it was advertised, how it was penned, what it did(n't) do, etc, there is one principle that really sticks with me: "If we amplify everything, we hear nothing."
Maybe the problem is that no one wants to hear anything, or have just gotten so sick of hearing the same old that they need to add noise themselves. But noise is noise; we continue one-upping each other on the decibel level until we all go deaf. I know it was a metaphor for the Cold War, but Dr. Seuss' Butter Battle Book comes to mind. Really it's the rhetoric that delivers the final nail in the coffin. Maybe it delivered all the nails, but whatever. I can't deal with it; it's like drama, except instead of just pertaining to a few people, it involves everyone. That's exhausting.
What I've been reading in listservs and on political blogs lately has convinced me that this is my breaking point: not the problem, not the possible solutions, but the means. Political discourse today seems to turn from a disagreement to a Hitler accusation in record time. New ideas have absolutely no shelf-life; everything must be devoured whole without chewing then pooped out to be reformed into one's own mold. Buzzwords replace discourse. Headlines outshine the story. No one seems immune: mainstream politics, the Tea Party, the Left, we all do it, and we all blame the others for doing it first. As if that's an excuse to continue the cycle.
Needless to say, turning my efforts inward from the big idea to the every day action has been good for my soul. I've been so happy these last few months. Working with both birthing families and breastfeeding moms is nothing short of awesome, and it's all leading me on a path that can sustain me, personally and professionally.
Thing is, I can hear this nagging voice in the back of my head: "You selfish, sell-out hussy. Losing sight of the big picture, just like everyone else that's responsible for the world's social epidemics."
I don't think the voice is me... I think it's an idea I've heard many times but never quite came to accept. After all, it's not like I'm losing sight of anything. There is a clear evolution from where I was three years ago to where I am now. There is no abandonment; consider it ideals put into practice. Besides, as much as I'd love to be back at Jo-Ann's using up all my time-off requests to go to a march that weekend, I can't carry the world on my shoulders any more. Which isn't to say I can't carry my fair share. I plan on doing that, maybe even some extra, but you can't just keep lugging around a stillborn movement without feeling the drain. Which is why I haven't picked it up in over a year... I guess it's just now become clear why I put it down in the first place.
Still ever more complicated. I can hear it now: "There are plenty of people in Iraq/Afghanistan/Palestine/Haiti/etc who would just love to do yoga and eat well." Yup, probably true. But their problems are not about to be solved by me or any number of people simply making themselves miserable. That's probably what's taken so long to come to terms with. There is indeed a fine line one must tread to find the balance between the selfish and the selfless. Thing is, it takes a certain amount of selfishness to equip oneself with the ability to be selfless. That's what I've learned.
So I guess this is me saying I'm putting down my protest sign for a while. I'm sure the spirit will find me again someday, but right now I just need to do my thing my way. It's not cynicism, and I'm not being blinded by false hope. I've spent enough time feeling bad about being absent, but obviously not so bad to plunge myself back in. I'm not allowing myself or anyone else to make me feel guilty about my decisions, nor am I allowing anyone to make me think that what I'm dong now is any less valid or relevant than what I was doing before. I would say I'm sorry, except I feel I have absolutely nothing to apologize for. It is indeed a freeing feeling.
How bad is it?
This bad. All it is is a story about bad weather in the Middle East, and the comments are outrageous. The most recent, presently at 10:35pm, are as follows (and remember, this is just a story about bad weather):
This is the kind of thing that will be looked back on the way we remember the segregationists or the McCarthyists.
Let's hope.
[shutters.]
"allah mad"
"Heavy rains? It's o.k. I have seen many pictures of the Middle East- everyone wears a hat."
"Its Israels fault! They trained the storm to hit the other countries around them. Watch out for the Mossad ... I'm joking of course"
"Couldn't happen to a nicer group!"
"One thing is for sure. The sociopathic powers that be of the extremist countries in this region will find a way to blame this on the West and/or Israel, and the masses will believe them. Sometimes I think they rival cold war Russia when it comes to propoganda [sic]."
This is the kind of thing that will be looked back on the way we remember the segregationists or the McCarthyists.
Let's hope.
[shutters.]
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Bra Shopping
When it comes to women's bodies, in particular the breasts and butt, there's always some crisis that inherently keeps us from happiness: we're too large here, too squishy there, and somehow too small somewhere else. Add to this the supposed "crisis" that 80% of women are wearing the wrong bra size {gasp!}, and an activity as basic as buying a new bra becomes a crash course in why feminism exists.
Once upon a time, I had a friend whose girlfriend had landed a job at one those Oprah-endorsed specialty bra shops. He said to me something like, "You'd probably like this store. Turns out most women are wearing the wrong bra size, and they help you find the right one." Never one to hide my convictions, I remember launching directly into a rant about how the "wrong bra size" statistic is just another attempt at capitalizing on women's insecurities while turning the focus away from real women's issues such as poverty, abuse, pay inequities, etc. I mean really!
Though I can't say I blamed my friend for assuming this was, in fact, a legitimate women's issue. He wasn't exactly well-versed in feminist ideology, and from the outside, many of these specialty stores and brands model themselves to look like champions of women's advancement. Indeed, to take the plunge into any department store undies section is to be inundated with co-opted feminist language: "Empower yourself with the new styles," "Comfort without sacrificing beauty," "Right on, Sister!", etc. It's the garment equivalent of the old Virginia Slims ad, "You've come a long way, baby."
Yes, there's nothing quite like bra shopping to reaffirm your hatred for the the fashion industry. Like big pharma, the people who decide what we put on our bodies are wizards at creating problems they subsequently manufacture products to fix, products that are neither easily replicated nor cheap. They have underwear that encases your thighs and buttocks like sausages with tags that promise to "stop unsightly jiggling." They have tanks that squeeze in your tummy while simultaneously pushing your boobies up towards your chin. There's undies that pad your butt in the "right" area while squishing in the "extra" in another, then there's undies that don't hold much of anything at all but instead just help you floss your buttcrack.
A little further in, when you get to the actual bras, you have more choices to make: bras with wires, bras with molded cups, bras that won't show under t-shirts, bras with chutzpah, minimizer bras, maximizer bras, bras with weird little pockets of fluid in them, bras made of lace, bras that cover everything, bras that don't cover anything, strapless bras that glue themselves to your skin, bras that make your boobs look like torpedoes, bras with something called "nipple protection," the list goes on and on. And all I wanted was a new bra. Something comfortable that I can wear under anything. That, and something with my two uncompromising rules for a new bra: nothing with hardware, and no chutzpah.
All these options and barely anything fits my two little requirements. See, I have an ideological problem with underwires. It's not so much that they're uncomfortable, as apparently that's another one of the tell-tale signs that you're not wearing the right size (sure, let's blame the women for picking out the wrong size and not the company that uses child-labor to make a defective product). It's not even so much that you can't put them in the dryer. The problem I have with underwires is what they tell us about our breasts. They're metal for crying out loud! It's almost like they're saying, "Your boobies are so out of control it takes hardware to hold them upright and keep them still." Which is completely false, as I've had many bras that do their job without anything but stretchy fabric and a good design. But they're not easy to find, as I'm a D cup. You can usually find a nice, underwire-free style in the AA, the A, the B, sometimes even the C, but once you get to that D cup, BAM! Your tig ol' bitties need some metal.
Then there's the chutzpah, by which I mean the padding that sits at the bottom of the cup. Once my no-hardware rule has significantly narrowed down my options, the chutzpah seals my fate. See, for some reason, the only way bra designers think you can go without hardware is by adding the under-padding. It's like one replaces the other. Sure, you can go without that uncomfortable metal, but you're gonna need that extra LIFT so we can all see your pretty, perky, lifted boobies. Um, no. My boobies don't need chutzpah, especially not with these D cups. That shit's a health hazard... any extra and I'm liable to put someone's eye out. There's nothing wrong with women wanting that extra lift, but when did chutzpah become the norm in bra design?
So went my shopping venture today: walking around the "intimates" section (I hate that word), squeezing the bottoms of each bra, feeling for hidden hardware or chutzpah, and not being surprised when it was present. I did finally find what I wanted, but not without some digging.
When people characterize feminists as "bra burners," the only reason I scoff is because I know the origin of that stereotype and its negative connotations. I don't take offense, however, to the notion that a feminist (or any woman) would want to burn a bra, hers or someone else's. I want to burn half the bras on the store's racks, too... they're horrible reflections of women's self-hatred and are highly indicative of the way consumer culture breeds these issues.
The decision to go braless is a personal one, though not one I can comfortably make for my curvy self, nor can I bring myself to don a padded piece of hardware. Underwire and padded bras are obviously preferences that are comfortable for many women, and my disdain does not lie in their decision to go that route. I just can't get over the normalcy of those features, features that tell us there are things about our bodies that need to be "fixed," not for our personal comfort but for the way it looks to others. And like so many "fixes," the problems are usually fabricated so a solution can be marketed. Far from the feminist language they co-opt, women's undies comprise yet another industry that feeds off our constant need for improvement, not for personal comfort, but for that age-old impossible standard of beauty.
Once upon a time, I had a friend whose girlfriend had landed a job at one those Oprah-endorsed specialty bra shops. He said to me something like, "You'd probably like this store. Turns out most women are wearing the wrong bra size, and they help you find the right one." Never one to hide my convictions, I remember launching directly into a rant about how the "wrong bra size" statistic is just another attempt at capitalizing on women's insecurities while turning the focus away from real women's issues such as poverty, abuse, pay inequities, etc. I mean really!
Though I can't say I blamed my friend for assuming this was, in fact, a legitimate women's issue. He wasn't exactly well-versed in feminist ideology, and from the outside, many of these specialty stores and brands model themselves to look like champions of women's advancement. Indeed, to take the plunge into any department store undies section is to be inundated with co-opted feminist language: "Empower yourself with the new styles," "Comfort without sacrificing beauty," "Right on, Sister!", etc. It's the garment equivalent of the old Virginia Slims ad, "You've come a long way, baby."
Yes, there's nothing quite like bra shopping to reaffirm your hatred for the the fashion industry. Like big pharma, the people who decide what we put on our bodies are wizards at creating problems they subsequently manufacture products to fix, products that are neither easily replicated nor cheap. They have underwear that encases your thighs and buttocks like sausages with tags that promise to "stop unsightly jiggling." They have tanks that squeeze in your tummy while simultaneously pushing your boobies up towards your chin. There's undies that pad your butt in the "right" area while squishing in the "extra" in another, then there's undies that don't hold much of anything at all but instead just help you floss your buttcrack.
A little further in, when you get to the actual bras, you have more choices to make: bras with wires, bras with molded cups, bras that won't show under t-shirts, bras with chutzpah, minimizer bras, maximizer bras, bras with weird little pockets of fluid in them, bras made of lace, bras that cover everything, bras that don't cover anything, strapless bras that glue themselves to your skin, bras that make your boobs look like torpedoes, bras with something called "nipple protection," the list goes on and on. And all I wanted was a new bra. Something comfortable that I can wear under anything. That, and something with my two uncompromising rules for a new bra: nothing with hardware, and no chutzpah. All these options and barely anything fits my two little requirements. See, I have an ideological problem with underwires. It's not so much that they're uncomfortable, as apparently that's another one of the tell-tale signs that you're not wearing the right size (sure, let's blame the women for picking out the wrong size and not the company that uses child-labor to make a defective product). It's not even so much that you can't put them in the dryer. The problem I have with underwires is what they tell us about our breasts. They're metal for crying out loud! It's almost like they're saying, "Your boobies are so out of control it takes hardware to hold them upright and keep them still." Which is completely false, as I've had many bras that do their job without anything but stretchy fabric and a good design. But they're not easy to find, as I'm a D cup. You can usually find a nice, underwire-free style in the AA, the A, the B, sometimes even the C, but once you get to that D cup, BAM! Your tig ol' bitties need some metal.
Then there's the chutzpah, by which I mean the padding that sits at the bottom of the cup. Once my no-hardware rule has significantly narrowed down my options, the chutzpah seals my fate. See, for some reason, the only way bra designers think you can go without hardware is by adding the under-padding. It's like one replaces the other. Sure, you can go without that uncomfortable metal, but you're gonna need that extra LIFT so we can all see your pretty, perky, lifted boobies. Um, no. My boobies don't need chutzpah, especially not with these D cups. That shit's a health hazard... any extra and I'm liable to put someone's eye out. There's nothing wrong with women wanting that extra lift, but when did chutzpah become the norm in bra design?So went my shopping venture today: walking around the "intimates" section (I hate that word), squeezing the bottoms of each bra, feeling for hidden hardware or chutzpah, and not being surprised when it was present. I did finally find what I wanted, but not without some digging.
When people characterize feminists as "bra burners," the only reason I scoff is because I know the origin of that stereotype and its negative connotations. I don't take offense, however, to the notion that a feminist (or any woman) would want to burn a bra, hers or someone else's. I want to burn half the bras on the store's racks, too... they're horrible reflections of women's self-hatred and are highly indicative of the way consumer culture breeds these issues.
The decision to go braless is a personal one, though not one I can comfortably make for my curvy self, nor can I bring myself to don a padded piece of hardware. Underwire and padded bras are obviously preferences that are comfortable for many women, and my disdain does not lie in their decision to go that route. I just can't get over the normalcy of those features, features that tell us there are things about our bodies that need to be "fixed," not for our personal comfort but for the way it looks to others. And like so many "fixes," the problems are usually fabricated so a solution can be marketed. Far from the feminist language they co-opt, women's undies comprise yet another industry that feeds off our constant need for improvement, not for personal comfort, but for that age-old impossible standard of beauty.
Friday, December 3, 2010
All I Want For Xmas...
On the first day of Christmas, my true friends gave to me....
A funny anti-Palin tee!
On the second day of Christmas, my true friends gave to me...
Two kids in love,
And a funny anti-Palin tee!
On the third day of Christmas, my true friends gave to me...
Three great friends,
Two kids in love,
And a funny anti-Palin tee!
On the fourth day of Christmas, my true friends gave to me...
Four-lettered words,
Three great friends,
Two kids in love,
And a funny anti-Palin tee!
On the fifth day of Christmas, my true friends gave to me...
FIIIIIIVE GOOOOOLLLLD RIIIIIINNNNGS!!!!!!
Four-lettered words,
Three great friends,
Two kids in love,
And a funny anti-Palin tee!
On the sixth day of Christmas, my true friends gave to me...
Six systems fraying,
FIIIIIIVE GOOOOOLLLLD RIIIIIINNNNGS!!!!!!
Four-lettered words,
Three great friends,
Two kids in love,
And a funny anti-Palin tee!
On the seventh day of Christmas, my true friends gave to me...
Seven ladies sinning,
Six systems fraying,
FIIIIIIVE GOOOOOLLLLD RIIIIIINNNNGS!!!!!!
Four-lettered words,
Three great friends,
Two kids in love,
And a funny anti-Palin tee!
On the eighth day of Christmas, my true friends gave to me...
Eight moms a-milking,
Seven ladies sinning,
Six systems fraying,
FIIIIIIVE GOOOOOLLLLD RIIIIIINNNNGS!!!!!!
Four-lettered words,
Three great friends,
Two kids in love,
And a funny anti-Palin tee!
On the ninth day of Christmas, my true friends gave to me...
Nine girls advancing,
Eight moms a-milking,
Seven ladies sinning,
Six systems fraying,
FIIIIIIVE GOOOOOLLLLD RIIIIIINNNNGS!!!!!!
Four-lettered words,
Three great friends,
Two kids in love,
And a funny anti-Palin tee!
On the tenth day of Christmas, my true friends gave to me...
Ten hours of sleeping,
Nine girls advancing,
Eight moms a-milking,
Seven ladies sinning,
Six systems fraying,
FIIIIIIVE GOOOOOLLLLD RIIIIIINNNNGS!!!!!!
Four-lettered words,
Three great friends,
Two kids in love,
And a funny anti-Palin tee!
On the eleventh day of Christmas, my true friends gave to me...
Eleven bloggers typing,
Ten hours of sleeping,
Nine girls advancing,
Eight moms a-milking,
Seven ladies sinning,
Six systems fraying,
FIIIIIIVE GOOOOOLLLLD RIIIIIINNNNGS!!!!!!
Four-lettered words,
Three great friends,
Two kids in love,
And a funny anti-Palin tee!
On the twelfth day of Christmas, my true friends gave to me...
Twelve Alan Cummings! (Oh yes, that's right.)
Eleven bloggers typing,
Ten hours of sleeping,
Nine girls advancing,
Eight moms a-milking,
Seven ladies sinning,
Six systems fraying,
FIIIIIIVE GOOOOOLLLLD RIIIIIINNNNGS!!!!!!
Four-lettered words,
Three great friends,
Two kids in love,
And a funny anti-Palin tee!
And a Funny, anti-Palin TEEEEE!!!!!
[fin.]
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Last Night's Nums: Curried fall veggies with quinoa
My grandmother always says that if you had to choose one food to eat forever, you should choose sweet potatoes because of their superior nutritional value. Personally, if there was one food I had to eat forever, it would be a grain, not because of its nutritional value, but just because I love grains! Breads, rice, pasta, cous-cous... there's not a lot of grains I won't eat (except for grits... yes, I'm a pathetic southerner).
Last night's meal contained both grains and sweet potatoes. I'd been wanting to try quinoa, a grain native to South America that's rich in iron and protein, two things my diet could really use more of. So I did a Google search for good quinoa recipes, and came across a true gem that uses both in-season and frozen veggies: quinoa with curried vegetables.
This recipe is pretty easy and can be prepared over a short period of time. Plus, depending on your family size, it will provide a slew of leftovers that reheat well. As an added bonus, the combination of ginger, garlic, and fenugreek can provide a nice supply boost to all you lactating mothers out there!
Those who know my cooking habits know I rarely follow recipes verbatum. Here's the recipe with my personal touches--
Ingredients:
Note that I upped the portion of most spices, except for the fenugreek. Fenugreek is an extremely potent spice when bought fresh-ground, and if you use too much your entire dish will be overwhelmed by a distinct maple syrup taste. If you don't have all of the spices listed above and don't want to buy them (let's face it... quality spices can be pricy), you can just purchase a good quality curry powder. For this recipe, use 2 tbsp of pre-mixed curry powder. Me, I love mixing my own!
I also used a Stokes Purple sweet potato. Stokes Purples are native to the northwestern Piedmont area (mostly in Stokes County, hence the name), an area with unique soil components that makes this particular strain grow a lovely purple. Not only are they local to my area, but they're also higher in anthocyanin (helps promote cardiovascular health) and rich in antioxidants that actually get more potent when cooked. Plus, they're pretty. (Exhibit A.)
I'm sure this recipe would be good with other grains such as white or brown rice, cous-cous, maybe even in noodles, but the quinoa's flavor really seemed to complement the kale. And the increased amount of cayenne pepper was of course wonderful next to the sweet potatoes and coconut milk. Add more if you want an even bigger kick.
Enjoy!!
Last night's meal contained both grains and sweet potatoes. I'd been wanting to try quinoa, a grain native to South America that's rich in iron and protein, two things my diet could really use more of. So I did a Google search for good quinoa recipes, and came across a true gem that uses both in-season and frozen veggies: quinoa with curried vegetables.
This recipe is pretty easy and can be prepared over a short period of time. Plus, depending on your family size, it will provide a slew of leftovers that reheat well. As an added bonus, the combination of ginger, garlic, and fenugreek can provide a nice supply boost to all you lactating mothers out there!
Those who know my cooking habits know I rarely follow recipes verbatum. Here's the recipe with my personal touches--
Ingredients:
- 1 cup quinoa, prepared according to package directions
- 2 Tbsp olive oil
- 2 cloves garlic, pressed
- 1 tbsp minced or grated ginger
- 1 large yam or sweet potato
- 1 lb kale, washed thoroughly, drained well, stems removed and chopped coarsely
- 1 cup frozen green beans
- 2 tsp ground cumin
- 1 tsp ground coriander
- 1/2 tsp ground fenugreek
- 1 tsp ground turmeric
- 1 tsp paprika
- 1 tsp cayanne pepper
- 1 tsp red curry paste
- 1 tsp salt
- 1/2 can coconut milk + 1/2 cup water OR 1 can light coconut milk
Directions:
- Heat the oil on low in the 8 quart pan
- Prep the veggies
- Turn the heat up to medium, fry the garlic and ginger in the oil until the garlic starts to brown
- Turn the heat up to medium-high, add the sweet potato. Sauté 5 minutes until the veggies are heated through.
- Add the cumin, coriander, turmeric, and cayenne if using, and stir 2 more minutes, until well mixed with the veggies. *NOTE: Our cookware is not non-stick, so I added another 1 1/2 tbsp of oil with the spices.
- Add the chopped kale and stir until the kale is wilted
- Add the frozen green beans and stir until blended
- Turn the heat down to medium, cover and cook for 5 minutes, or until the veggies reach the desired doneness. Add a sprinkle of water if the veggies are sticking
- Add the coconut milk and red curry paste if using. Stir well, and cook another 5 minutes
- Stir in cooked quinoa, enjoy!
Note that I upped the portion of most spices, except for the fenugreek. Fenugreek is an extremely potent spice when bought fresh-ground, and if you use too much your entire dish will be overwhelmed by a distinct maple syrup taste. If you don't have all of the spices listed above and don't want to buy them (let's face it... quality spices can be pricy), you can just purchase a good quality curry powder. For this recipe, use 2 tbsp of pre-mixed curry powder. Me, I love mixing my own!
I'm sure this recipe would be good with other grains such as white or brown rice, cous-cous, maybe even in noodles, but the quinoa's flavor really seemed to complement the kale. And the increased amount of cayenne pepper was of course wonderful next to the sweet potatoes and coconut milk. Add more if you want an even bigger kick.
Enjoy!!
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Let's Take T'Day
Today, the socially-conscious spent the day posting Thanksgiving reality checks on Facebook and Twitter, some of which were inflammatory to a fault. I read a number of pieces that basically told me I should renounce the tradition altogether, never again to gorge myself on another drumstick (that is, if the drumstick is being consumed on the fourth Thursday of November).
Now, I'm not oblivious to the gruesome history regarding this land's Native population and the way they were (and continue to be) treated by European invaders. It is absolutely imperative that we remain mindful of such a history and make sure our children aren't fooled by the whopping load of bullshit they're taught in school about the "cooperation" and "togetherness" between Natives and Europeans. And mindfulness can and should occasionally come with staunch, honest humor. Like so...
Yes, the history of our nation has a gruesome history. But is such a history truly the root of Thanksgiving?
Not exactly. In fact, Thanksgiving Day as we know it was more or less the brainchild of Sarah Josepha Hale, long-time editor of Ladies Magazine, who was instrumental in petitioning the federal government to make it a national holiday. And despite school pageants that suggest otherwise, the day was not established as a national holiday to commemorate a supposed cooperative effort between First Persons and Europeans. In fact, Hale's convictions rested on a far more ubiquitous concept. After the Civil War left the nation fragmented, Hale saw Thanksgiving as an opportunity for unity:
But why does it mean we can't celebrate Hale's vision of peace, good-will, collectivism, and good company? How does slicing up a turkey and gorging oneself on stuffing and mashed potatoes equal honoring genocide? Most importantly, why is it important to only feel guilty about our ancestors' actions against the Native population on Thanksgiving Day?
I think you can be mindful of a gruesome history while still enjoying some of the (benign) traditions it produced, especially since the entire myth of Thanksgiving is bullshit anyway... what about a day in November where we just get together and eat some good food? Why is that so bad, if we remain mindful of this country's history?
For those of you that are about to jump down my throat for the above statement: if you don't think you can enjoy a tradition or take advantage of a practice that has a gruesome history, you had better be ready to renounce a lot of things you take for granted. Modern medicine comes to mind. Much our knowledge of the human body, its limits, and safe treatment options came from Nazi Germany, Tuskegee, and, in the case of women's health, Marion Sims. What about the Pill? That drug specifically came from dangerous experiments on Puerto Rican women. Are you really ready to renounce all that?
I didn't think so.
Something I've learned is that, while we work tirelessly to change the future, you can't change the past. Being mindful, honoring those lost to unethical and/or genocidal practices, and working for a better future is one thing. Trying to denounce and "opt out" of everything with a gruesome history is, for the most part, completely impossible. I mean, you live in America, where every day this history is celebrated on some level, Thanksgiving or not. Your clothes were made in Vietnam, the products that fill your home were made in China, and your food is probably not 100% ethically produced.
I'm not going to apologize for enjoying my turkey, stuffing, gravy, cornbread dressing, and all that good stuff, especially since those foods have little to nothing to do with the horrific actions taken against the Native Americans. Let's make Thanksgiving something rad... let's celebrate collectivism without all the baggage of historical myths, distortions, and what is in essence White Liberal Guilt. If we do it on the fourth Thursday in November, so what? It's not a bad thing to get together to eat, drink, and be merry.
Now, I'm not oblivious to the gruesome history regarding this land's Native population and the way they were (and continue to be) treated by European invaders. It is absolutely imperative that we remain mindful of such a history and make sure our children aren't fooled by the whopping load of bullshit they're taught in school about the "cooperation" and "togetherness" between Natives and Europeans. And mindfulness can and should occasionally come with staunch, honest humor. Like so...
Yes, the history of our nation has a gruesome history. But is such a history truly the root of Thanksgiving?
Not exactly. In fact, Thanksgiving Day as we know it was more or less the brainchild of Sarah Josepha Hale, long-time editor of Ladies Magazine, who was instrumental in petitioning the federal government to make it a national holiday. And despite school pageants that suggest otherwise, the day was not established as a national holiday to commemorate a supposed cooperative effort between First Persons and Europeans. In fact, Hale's convictions rested on a far more ubiquitous concept. After the Civil War left the nation fragmented, Hale saw Thanksgiving as an opportunity for unity:
Let us consecrate the day to benevolence of action, by sending good gifts to the poor, and doing those deeds of charity that will, for one day, make every American home the place of plenty and of rejoicing. These seasons of refreshing are of inestimable advantage to the popular heart; and if rightly managed, will greatly aid and strengthen public harmony of feeling. Let the people of all the States and Territories sit down together to the "feast of fat things," and drink, in the sweet draught of joy and gratitude to the Divine giver of all our blessings, the pledge of renewed love to the Union, and to each other; and of peace and good-will to all men.Now obviously we do not commemorate Thanksgiving in this way. We continue with our story of the supposed "First Thanksgiving" where "pilgrims" and "Indians" joined together to help one another survive the winter. This clear distortion of history should, indeed, be taken to task.
But why does it mean we can't celebrate Hale's vision of peace, good-will, collectivism, and good company? How does slicing up a turkey and gorging oneself on stuffing and mashed potatoes equal honoring genocide? Most importantly, why is it important to only feel guilty about our ancestors' actions against the Native population on Thanksgiving Day?
I think you can be mindful of a gruesome history while still enjoying some of the (benign) traditions it produced, especially since the entire myth of Thanksgiving is bullshit anyway... what about a day in November where we just get together and eat some good food? Why is that so bad, if we remain mindful of this country's history?
For those of you that are about to jump down my throat for the above statement: if you don't think you can enjoy a tradition or take advantage of a practice that has a gruesome history, you had better be ready to renounce a lot of things you take for granted. Modern medicine comes to mind. Much our knowledge of the human body, its limits, and safe treatment options came from Nazi Germany, Tuskegee, and, in the case of women's health, Marion Sims. What about the Pill? That drug specifically came from dangerous experiments on Puerto Rican women. Are you really ready to renounce all that?
I didn't think so.
Something I've learned is that, while we work tirelessly to change the future, you can't change the past. Being mindful, honoring those lost to unethical and/or genocidal practices, and working for a better future is one thing. Trying to denounce and "opt out" of everything with a gruesome history is, for the most part, completely impossible. I mean, you live in America, where every day this history is celebrated on some level, Thanksgiving or not. Your clothes were made in Vietnam, the products that fill your home were made in China, and your food is probably not 100% ethically produced.
I'm not going to apologize for enjoying my turkey, stuffing, gravy, cornbread dressing, and all that good stuff, especially since those foods have little to nothing to do with the horrific actions taken against the Native Americans. Let's make Thanksgiving something rad... let's celebrate collectivism without all the baggage of historical myths, distortions, and what is in essence White Liberal Guilt. If we do it on the fourth Thursday in November, so what? It's not a bad thing to get together to eat, drink, and be merry.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Prematurity Awareness and Labor Induction
I learned from RH Reality Check that yesterday was Prematurity Awareness Day. According to March of Dimes president Jennifer Howse, the United States has one of the highest rates of premature birth in the industrialized world, receiving a letter grade of "D" from the MoD. The March of Dimes cites lack of access to early prenatal care and education as a main reason for the discrepancy.
While I appreciate blogger Robin Marty for calling attention to this major problem in the United States, I must say I was shocked to find no mention of a common medical practice that contributes to premature birth: labor induction without medical indication.
Others would call this "elective induction," but I've seen enough to know that it's usually the doctor, not the mother, that pushes for the induction, and therefore I find the term "elective" puts undue blame on the mother. After all, we're supposed to trust our care providers. When a doctor tells you that you "need" to be induced, we're not supposed to have to ask why. We figure the term "need" means there's a problem. But when it comes to induction of labor, a doctor telling you it's "needed" without providing an explanation usually means it's not needed at all. (I always encourage my clients to ask lots of questions, even if they have a care provider that lays everything out for them. If there's a problem, they'll usually tell you, but if they're pushing for an induction without saying why, you should know beforehand what the problem is, if any.)
Estimated due dates are just that: estimates. In most cases, your body is the best indicator of when a baby is ready to be born, and the onset of labor is your cue. Unless there is another complication (pre-eclampsia, placental insufficiency, gestational diabetes, etc), most babies will come when they're supposed to come. As my dad says, "Babies are always right on time." Inducing labor for the convenience of the doctor, the parents, or even the doula might seem okay or even preferable, but you could be cutting off valuable gestation time where the baby will be getting her/his final developmental markers.
In other words, babies born from induction can be (and sometimes are) classified as premature even if they're born at or slightly after the 38 week mark. Again, your estimated due date is just an estimate, and different babies take different amounts of time to be "ready." Studies show babies born at 38 weeks from a spontaneous labor have much better outcomes than babies born at 38 weeks from induction. Babies born from induction are more likely to have jaundice, respiratory distress, lower APGAR scores, difficulty establishing a sleep cycle, increased risk for sepsis, and of course, difficulty breastfeeding. Many induction babies need transfer to the NICU. Being induced puts the mother at risk for cesarean, difficulty establishing a milk supply, and retained placenta (with or without cesarean surgery).
Of course, there are good medical reasons to induce, and you should trust your care provider to help you make that call. If there is an emergency and the baby needs to be born, good medical care and support from trained professionals can help curb these problems, but if induction is not necessary, why take the risk? As far as the prematurity issue goes, well, you simply cannot address premature birth without addressing the medical practices that cause more babies to come too soon, and that practice is routine induction without medical indication.
While I appreciate blogger Robin Marty for calling attention to this major problem in the United States, I must say I was shocked to find no mention of a common medical practice that contributes to premature birth: labor induction without medical indication.
Others would call this "elective induction," but I've seen enough to know that it's usually the doctor, not the mother, that pushes for the induction, and therefore I find the term "elective" puts undue blame on the mother. After all, we're supposed to trust our care providers. When a doctor tells you that you "need" to be induced, we're not supposed to have to ask why. We figure the term "need" means there's a problem. But when it comes to induction of labor, a doctor telling you it's "needed" without providing an explanation usually means it's not needed at all. (I always encourage my clients to ask lots of questions, even if they have a care provider that lays everything out for them. If there's a problem, they'll usually tell you, but if they're pushing for an induction without saying why, you should know beforehand what the problem is, if any.)
Estimated due dates are just that: estimates. In most cases, your body is the best indicator of when a baby is ready to be born, and the onset of labor is your cue. Unless there is another complication (pre-eclampsia, placental insufficiency, gestational diabetes, etc), most babies will come when they're supposed to come. As my dad says, "Babies are always right on time." Inducing labor for the convenience of the doctor, the parents, or even the doula might seem okay or even preferable, but you could be cutting off valuable gestation time where the baby will be getting her/his final developmental markers.
In other words, babies born from induction can be (and sometimes are) classified as premature even if they're born at or slightly after the 38 week mark. Again, your estimated due date is just an estimate, and different babies take different amounts of time to be "ready." Studies show babies born at 38 weeks from a spontaneous labor have much better outcomes than babies born at 38 weeks from induction. Babies born from induction are more likely to have jaundice, respiratory distress, lower APGAR scores, difficulty establishing a sleep cycle, increased risk for sepsis, and of course, difficulty breastfeeding. Many induction babies need transfer to the NICU. Being induced puts the mother at risk for cesarean, difficulty establishing a milk supply, and retained placenta (with or without cesarean surgery).
Of course, there are good medical reasons to induce, and you should trust your care provider to help you make that call. If there is an emergency and the baby needs to be born, good medical care and support from trained professionals can help curb these problems, but if induction is not necessary, why take the risk? As far as the prematurity issue goes, well, you simply cannot address premature birth without addressing the medical practices that cause more babies to come too soon, and that practice is routine induction without medical indication.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Taking CPC Awareness to the Streets
The following was first published as a ChoiceActivism submission at ChoiceUSA's ChoiceWords blog.
------------
Anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers continue to pose an affront to informed choice in our country. Outnumbering real abortion clinics 2-1 nationwide, CPCs often advertise themselves as abortion providers or places where women can obtain unbiased information about their reproductive options. They are known for misleading women with bunk statistics about a purported link between abortion and breast cancer/infertility/depression and for effectively delaying a woman's decision past the point where she would be able to choose a medical, non-invasive abortion procedure. While disclosure requirement efforts by activists in Baltimore, MD, Austin, TX, and New York, NY would help to stave off confusion, a group of grassroots activists in Greensboro, NC are taking public awareness into their own hands.
Organized by simple word-of-mouth, monthly demonstrations take place in front of the Greensboro Pregnancy Care Center, an affiliate of CareNet. They hold signs reading, "FAKE CLINIC," "Honk 4 Choice," and others in order to educate passing cars about the Pregnancy Care Center. They do not engage with people going in and out of the center. The participants are students, workers, and retirees. What brings them together each month is their continued concern over the information given out by the CPC.
During an appointment, a staff member at the center told a UNCG student that abortion is linked to higher instances of breast cancer, a claim that has been continually repudiated by the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and others. When I personally called the center to inquire about emergency contraception (they call it simply the "morning after pill"), the woman on the phone told me I would have to make an appointment, and that the next available appointment was in three days. Had I really needed emergency contraception, this would have put me past the point where the drug would have been effective, possibly leading to an unintended pregnancy and possibly an abortion. What's more, the woman on the phone never told me the center did not carry the medication.
It's not just personal experiences that led to concern over this particular CPC's operation. While they recently added a disclaimer that they do not provide or refer for abortions, their website continues to claim that they offer "accurate information about all pregnancy options." Or do they? Under "Abortion Education," they claim that medical abortion ("abortion by pill") can only be used up to seven weeks since the last menstrual period (LMP), when in fact it is effective and prescribed up to nine weeks LMP. Another page ("Morning After Pill") claims that emergency contraception can cause "an early abortion," which is not only a medically inaccurate claim, but could dissuade a woman who is morally opposed to abortion from taking steps that could prevent pregnancy in the first place.
Until these centers are held accountable for the misinformation they provide, policy-based activism and grassroots activism alike will continue. The concerned citizens of Greensboro, NC are no exception. From a press statement:
------------
Anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers continue to pose an affront to informed choice in our country. Outnumbering real abortion clinics 2-1 nationwide, CPCs often advertise themselves as abortion providers or places where women can obtain unbiased information about their reproductive options. They are known for misleading women with bunk statistics about a purported link between abortion and breast cancer/infertility/depression and for effectively delaying a woman's decision past the point where she would be able to choose a medical, non-invasive abortion procedure. While disclosure requirement efforts by activists in Baltimore, MD, Austin, TX, and New York, NY would help to stave off confusion, a group of grassroots activists in Greensboro, NC are taking public awareness into their own hands.
Organized by simple word-of-mouth, monthly demonstrations take place in front of the Greensboro Pregnancy Care Center, an affiliate of CareNet. They hold signs reading, "FAKE CLINIC," "Honk 4 Choice," and others in order to educate passing cars about the Pregnancy Care Center. They do not engage with people going in and out of the center. The participants are students, workers, and retirees. What brings them together each month is their continued concern over the information given out by the CPC.
It's not just personal experiences that led to concern over this particular CPC's operation. While they recently added a disclaimer that they do not provide or refer for abortions, their website continues to claim that they offer "accurate information about all pregnancy options." Or do they? Under "Abortion Education," they claim that medical abortion ("abortion by pill") can only be used up to seven weeks since the last menstrual period (LMP), when in fact it is effective and prescribed up to nine weeks LMP. Another page ("Morning After Pill") claims that emergency contraception can cause "an early abortion," which is not only a medically inaccurate claim, but could dissuade a woman who is morally opposed to abortion from taking steps that could prevent pregnancy in the first place.
Until these centers are held accountable for the misinformation they provide, policy-based activism and grassroots activism alike will continue. The concerned citizens of Greensboro, NC are no exception. From a press statement:
We hope to alert women to seek help for their pregnancies or suspected pregnancies at proper clinics and OB-GYN offices. As advocates of the pro-choice movement we believe that every woman deserves the right to be informed about every option (abortion, motherhood, adoption) truthfully and without coercion or intimidation.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
The Election Night Trap
Yet every Election Night, I'm here, refreshing CNN or whatever, looking for more results. I get down to find that a Republican has taken this district, get excited to see that a Democrat took that district, and what's funny is these aren't even places I live!
Maybe I get caught up in all the excitement. Maybe I just like living in a Blue area, because having a fun color-coded map that tells me where people fall on a very limited political spectrum is reassuring; it's good to be able to easily see that my neighbors are at least partially on my side. Maybe I just love to see conservatives get angry.
Maybe, though, I think it matters more than I'd like to think it does. I mean honestly. This morning, I voted. I voted for lots of Democrats: Elaine Marshall (defeated), Don Vaughn (winner), Maggie Jeffus (projected to win), and whoever ran against BJ Barnes (dammit). I justify it clearly enough with issues that matter to me: especially as a woman of reproductive age, living in a state represented by a Senator who thinks zygotes should get more rights than women, well, is it any wonder I suck it up and vote every two years? I mean it's not like I'm kidding myself. Sure it's "lesser-evilism," but a lesser-evil is better than a pure evil.
Then the reality check sets in. I have to come back from it all and say to myself, "Self, there are things about tonight's results that will change my country, my state, my neighborhood, my friends, and my life. But are these results going to drastically change what I do on a day to day basis? I mean, is any elected official going to make it effectively unnecessary for me to continue to fight for social justice on multiple levels?"
And of course the answer is no. Then, only after this repetitive inner-dialogue, I can climb out of the Election Night trap, get a good night's sleep, and wake up ready to continue doing what I do all over again tomorrow.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Productive Disagreement
As both a person of activism, a non-moderate, and still a fan of The Daily Show, much of the discourse surrounding the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear troubled me. I'm speaking both about the discourse on the part of Stewart/Colbert as well as the part of those that I see very much as brothers and sisters in the same struggles I am involved in.
In many ways, I believe Stewart's endeavors can and possibly did hurt the public's opinion of those of us who take to the streets and don't apologize for it, and that is something that he and the entire Daily Show staff should be held accountable for.
That being said, I really like Stewart's closing statement.
[Full Text Here]
I agree, "If we amplify everything, we hear nothing." And in most cases, in the case of people we disagree with but who aren't the extremists who are in short supply but get 90% of media air time, we do need to listen. That's something I've learned in the past couple of years, that we do need to listen. And we need to gather all our strength to add our rebuttals, but we need to do so without screaming and getting unduly inflammatory (yeah I'm still working on that).
I believe there is a time and place for screaming, but he's right: screaming isn't the right course of action when dealing with people who could actually become partners in a struggle, and it's certainly not the right course of action when dealing with someone whose opinions are so close to yours they're nearly indistinguishable, but you get hung up on insignificant boundaries that end up dividing you. I'm not sure if that's exactly what he was saying here, but if it is, I wholeheartedly agree.
I will say, though, that I'm not 100% on board with the lot. Again, I'm a person of activism and a non-moderate. I'm not a fan, for example, of the "why would we reach across the aisle to Marxists" comment. That was the one thing that rubbed me the wrong way. But again, he's speaking about Marxism as we see it, Marxism through the lens of a misrepresentation machine, ironically enough the same one that Stewart is holding accountable here. To not have realized that is a gross oversight on his part, and a damaging one at that.
Regardless, the closing statement is important. It isn't all gold, but a lot of it is good to hear, to listen to, and then either take to heart or discard after giving it a fighting chance. Your choice. The important thing is that you heard it and you gave it some thought and were willing to listen, and by listening you either changed your way of thinking or carefully and reflectively reinforced what you already knew. Especially when it comes from a left-leaning moderate, surely there is something those of us on the Left can agree with. I know there's lots in this statement, tons about the rally, that many of my dear friends on the Left found disheartening or even infuriating. But if you can't still have a listen, really hear what it is he or anyone else you disagree with is saying, and see through the handful of things you don't like while possibly gaining something positive still, then we are truly lost for good.
In many ways, I believe Stewart's endeavors can and possibly did hurt the public's opinion of those of us who take to the streets and don't apologize for it, and that is something that he and the entire Daily Show staff should be held accountable for.
That being said, I really like Stewart's closing statement.
| Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear | ||||
| Jon Stewart - Moment of Sincerity | ||||
| ||||
[Full Text Here]
I agree, "If we amplify everything, we hear nothing." And in most cases, in the case of people we disagree with but who aren't the extremists who are in short supply but get 90% of media air time, we do need to listen. That's something I've learned in the past couple of years, that we do need to listen. And we need to gather all our strength to add our rebuttals, but we need to do so without screaming and getting unduly inflammatory (yeah I'm still working on that).
I believe there is a time and place for screaming, but he's right: screaming isn't the right course of action when dealing with people who could actually become partners in a struggle, and it's certainly not the right course of action when dealing with someone whose opinions are so close to yours they're nearly indistinguishable, but you get hung up on insignificant boundaries that end up dividing you. I'm not sure if that's exactly what he was saying here, but if it is, I wholeheartedly agree.
I will say, though, that I'm not 100% on board with the lot. Again, I'm a person of activism and a non-moderate. I'm not a fan, for example, of the "why would we reach across the aisle to Marxists" comment. That was the one thing that rubbed me the wrong way. But again, he's speaking about Marxism as we see it, Marxism through the lens of a misrepresentation machine, ironically enough the same one that Stewart is holding accountable here. To not have realized that is a gross oversight on his part, and a damaging one at that.
Regardless, the closing statement is important. It isn't all gold, but a lot of it is good to hear, to listen to, and then either take to heart or discard after giving it a fighting chance. Your choice. The important thing is that you heard it and you gave it some thought and were willing to listen, and by listening you either changed your way of thinking or carefully and reflectively reinforced what you already knew. Especially when it comes from a left-leaning moderate, surely there is something those of us on the Left can agree with. I know there's lots in this statement, tons about the rally, that many of my dear friends on the Left found disheartening or even infuriating. But if you can't still have a listen, really hear what it is he or anyone else you disagree with is saying, and see through the handful of things you don't like while possibly gaining something positive still, then we are truly lost for good.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Juan Williams isn't stupid.
No, I don't think NPR should have fired Juan Williams over last week's comments on The O'Reilly Factor. I think NPR should have fired him when he fabricated comments by would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shazad, a huge no-no as any Journalism 101 student could tell you. I think NPR should have fired him when, despite many clear warnings from his employers, he continued to violate the standards of journalistic conduct that NPR holds each of its analysts to. But, seeing how NPR failed to terminate his contract following any of those incidents, ousting him after his highly bigoted comments on the Factor was the next best thing.
Of course, none of this has stopped the talking heads at Fox News from railing on about how Williams' supposed "First Amendment rights" were violated. And of course, Fox News was happy to take in the poor, oppressed Williams and offer him a $2million contract, thus giving us a clear answer to the question, "What does it take to get a job at Fox News?" (In Williams' case, all you have to do is make some bigoted comments on one of their programs and get subsequently fired from what they see as a "liberal think tank.")
The firing issue, my friends, was not just that the comment was inflammatory. The issue was that Juan Williams made an appearance on The O'Reilly Factor as a representative from NPR's analyst team. He was not appearing as an individual, as the screencap on the left shows, but as a contributing journalist from NPR. When you appear on a television program as a representative of your employing agency, you're accountable for what you say and do. This is nothing Williams didn't know. That's just how employment works, period.
Even if Williams had appeared as an individual, NPR's code of ethics expressly prohibits journalists from "participat[ing] in shows, electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than rather than fact-based analysis." Whether or not this standard stifles free speech is not the issue; Williams knew this code, he knew he was acting in violation of his employer's policy, and he chose to appear on The O'Reilly Factor anyway.
One could speculate that Williams appeared on the Factor to make inflammatory comments specifically so that his contract with NPR would be terminated. He could have well known that the supposedly "pro-free speech" (read: pro-Islamaphobia) Fox News would play Good Samaritan and offer him, let's face it, a much more lucrative contract.
What's the other issue here? Are we "too politically correct" about Muslims, Islam, and people from the Middle East? Is it really "too politically correct" to expect someone to not be a racist? Or do conservatives sense the tide turning away from knee-jerk Islamaphobia and cry "free speech" whenever one of their own is held accountable for their bigoted actions?
No, Fox News' interest in Williams has precious little to do with freedom of speech. Their interest stems from their goal of keeping Islamaphobia the norm. They would not have reacted so compassionately if Williams had been fired for, say, denouncing Christine O'Donnel's credibility or for saying something inflammatory about the Tea Party Movement. Why would they? They have no vested interest in promoting that way of thinking, and in the above cases they would have shunned him outright. But when Williams comes under fire for his repeated racist, bigoted, and highly-editorialized "analysis," well, the corporate news dogs have got his back: Fox News chief Roger Ailes says Williams' right to say bigoted things will be "protected by Fox News on a daily basis."
Let me make one thing clear: Juan Williams is not the victim of a First Amendment violation. He said what he said, and he is still a free citizen who does not have to worry about his government locking him up, or worse. He exercised his right to say something bigoted, and NPR responded by exercising their right to fire his ass. And in terms of how this ugly scenario turned out, I wouldn't worry much about Juan Williams. Just because NPR isn't on the market for an Islamaphobe doesn't mean other news agencies aren't. I think he'll be just fine.
Of course, none of this has stopped the talking heads at Fox News from railing on about how Williams' supposed "First Amendment rights" were violated. And of course, Fox News was happy to take in the poor, oppressed Williams and offer him a $2million contract, thus giving us a clear answer to the question, "What does it take to get a job at Fox News?" (In Williams' case, all you have to do is make some bigoted comments on one of their programs and get subsequently fired from what they see as a "liberal think tank.")
Even if Williams had appeared as an individual, NPR's code of ethics expressly prohibits journalists from "participat[ing] in shows, electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than rather than fact-based analysis." Whether or not this standard stifles free speech is not the issue; Williams knew this code, he knew he was acting in violation of his employer's policy, and he chose to appear on The O'Reilly Factor anyway.
One could speculate that Williams appeared on the Factor to make inflammatory comments specifically so that his contract with NPR would be terminated. He could have well known that the supposedly "pro-free speech" (read: pro-Islamaphobia) Fox News would play Good Samaritan and offer him, let's face it, a much more lucrative contract.
What's the other issue here? Are we "too politically correct" about Muslims, Islam, and people from the Middle East? Is it really "too politically correct" to expect someone to not be a racist? Or do conservatives sense the tide turning away from knee-jerk Islamaphobia and cry "free speech" whenever one of their own is held accountable for their bigoted actions?
Let me make one thing clear: Juan Williams is not the victim of a First Amendment violation. He said what he said, and he is still a free citizen who does not have to worry about his government locking him up, or worse. He exercised his right to say something bigoted, and NPR responded by exercising their right to fire his ass. And in terms of how this ugly scenario turned out, I wouldn't worry much about Juan Williams. Just because NPR isn't on the market for an Islamaphobe doesn't mean other news agencies aren't. I think he'll be just fine.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Glenn Beck, survival kits, and vertical integration
Remember on last week's 30 Rock how Jack was defending a controversial method of vertical integration? Example: a company that manufactures both snack chips and Pepto might be inclined to make their snack chips cause diarrhea. It's genius, really... and not at all fictional:
Glenn Beck Hawking Survivalist Disaster Kits
Here's how it works: first, Beck plants the seeds of sensationalist fear and paranoia into the minds of his many viewers/listeners. Then he promotes (and makes money off of) a product that only the fearful and the paranoid will purchase. Genius!
Beck used to suggest his viewers buy gold, and lots of it, in preparation for the coming economic apocalypse where the government will apparently confiscate our valuables. But not just any gold: Beck, along with Mike Huckabee, played spokesperson in commercials for a company called Goldline International, a company that has recently come under investigation for allegedly ripping off consumers.
Now that we're apparently looking at the apocalypse apocalypse, where only the owners of freeze-dried foodstuffs will survive, Beck is all about this "food insurance" thing. And in true paternalistic form, he grasps his target market by co-opting some tired old patriarch-as-provider jargon:
TPM reports that the "survival kits" range from $199.99 for a single "essentials" kit to a whopping $9,599.99 for one that can feed a five person family for up to 12 months. Is it any wonder Beck made $32million last year?
Your fear and paranoia are commodities to Beck, and he's cashing in like mad. It's genius. Evil genius, but genius nonetheless.
Glenn Beck Hawking Survivalist Disaster Kits
Here's how it works: first, Beck plants the seeds of sensationalist fear and paranoia into the minds of his many viewers/listeners. Then he promotes (and makes money off of) a product that only the fearful and the paranoid will purchase. Genius!
Beck used to suggest his viewers buy gold, and lots of it, in preparation for the coming economic apocalypse where the government will apparently confiscate our valuables. But not just any gold: Beck, along with Mike Huckabee, played spokesperson in commercials for a company called Goldline International, a company that has recently come under investigation for allegedly ripping off consumers.
Now that we're apparently looking at the apocalypse apocalypse, where only the owners of freeze-dried foodstuffs will survive, Beck is all about this "food insurance" thing. And in true paternalistic form, he grasps his target market by co-opting some tired old patriarch-as-provider jargon:
"I finished my food storage, and I couldn't believe how relieved I was. I remember sitting down on the stairs of the basement and looking at it, and thinking 'I could lose my job, and my family will eat.' Sometimes guys don't realize how much pressure is on them."{vomit sounds}
TPM reports that the "survival kits" range from $199.99 for a single "essentials" kit to a whopping $9,599.99 for one that can feed a five person family for up to 12 months. Is it any wonder Beck made $32million last year?
Your fear and paranoia are commodities to Beck, and he's cashing in like mad. It's genius. Evil genius, but genius nonetheless.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Being a non-Mom
When I made the decision to pursue an IBCLC certification, I knew there would be some challenges to gaining the required clinical hours. As a non-medical professional with no interest in becoming a registered nurse, I first questioned whether or not the IBCLC certification was even possible. In speaking with IBLCE representatives and several lactation consultants, I learned that there are many pathways to gaining the hours needed to sit for the IBLCE exam. Being an RN is not necessary, and in fact, many lactation consultants I spoke with at a recent conference were thrilled to meet a woman who was a) young, b) non-RN, and c) still interested in pursuing a career in lactation consulting. They said the profession could use some "new blood," and having LCs around who come from a doula background instead of a medical one is welcome.
The recommendation I heard over and over again at the conference was, "Become a La Leche League leader!" I had contacted my local LLL chapter, but haven't yet heard back. So today, I went on their website to see exactly how I might best become a supporter of LLLI and possibly become a leader.
The first and foremost requirement is that you be a mother who has breastfed her children. I can understand why this might be recommended, or even what might bring a woman to become a LLL Leader in the first place, but a requirement? I do not wish to insult the amazing women who work with LLLI, nor do I want to discredit the invaluable work they have done to promote breastfeeding in their communities, but this seems unfair.
One could defend LLLI: "Well, a breastfeeding mom would know what the women she serves is going through." This is true, but any woman who has breastfed more than one child can tell you that each baby is different; I sincerely doubt an LLLI leader, regardless of how many children she's breastfed herself, can personally relate to each and every experience brought forth by a mom that needs some assistance breastfeeding.
I have encountered the same in my work as a doula. One of the first questions several prospective clients have asked me is, "Do you have children yourself?" I have been rejected outright from even being granted an interview for this reason, while others have simply chosen not to hire me without saying why. I have also heard of women not wanting a doula who has not VBAC'ed, home birthed, had a cesarean, birthed twins, etc. While I believe firmly that it is their right to choose the doula they feel best fits their needs, the idea that non-moms make crap doulas is pervasive to a fault.
A woman at an online doula forum I read agrees that non-moms are ineffective doulas. Her thought process: "Would you hire a fat nutritionist?"
Okay, first of all, we're talking about totally different things here. A nutritionist who preaches good health but chooses to eat unhealthy foods is not the same thing as a woman who has chosen to not have children yet. Eating healthy and entering into a lifetime commitment where your entire existence is consumed with taking care of another human being are completely different things. Besides, who's to say an unhealthy nutritionist chooses to eat unhealthy foods? And who's to say a woman who doesn't have kids has chosen not to have them? What if this nutritionist has a thyroid problem? What if this non-Mom is unable to get pregnant, or has had multiple miscarriages, or has lost a baby? Or, {gasp} that she just doesn't want kids but sees value in providing support to those who do? Saying a woman who has never had children is a bad doula is like saying a doctor who has never had brain surgery is a bad neurosurgeon.
Secondly, as I mentioned before, each and every pregnancy and birth is different. Even if you find a doula who has VBAC'ed, or cesarean birthed, or home birthed, or whatever, your experience is highly unlikely to be a carbon copy of hers. Besides, doulas don't just run on their own experience; if we did, we'd only be able to support women who were having identical pregnancies, which of course would be useless. Doulas are professionals. We are professionally trained, and we are trained to provide support for a variety of birthing experiences. A woman who has had twenty kids is no better at providing labor support as a woman who has, for whatever reason, had none. (Would you hire Michelle Duggar as your doula? Me neither.)
So back to La Leche League. I understand that LLLI was established by breastfeeding moms, that their entire tradition was built on peer support and a sense of camaraderie. Maybe the issue is that we need to expand our understanding of what "peer support" can be. Maybe, instead of assuming that similar experiences makes you better able provide support, we need to understand that all women are able to support one another as a collective sisterhood. Sisterhood, the basis for which feminism was established, crosses boundaries. It transcends race, age, and class. Isn't sisterhood what the founders of LLLI were looking for? Even if I have not (yet) experienced childbirth and breastfeeding in my own life, does that make me wholly incapable of providing support to those who have? It goes back to training, and training I have. The LLLI motherhood requirement smacks of identity politics, an outdated movement building tool that divides instead of unites. Solidarity should be the model for childbirth and breastfeeding support organizations, not exclusion.
The recommendation I heard over and over again at the conference was, "Become a La Leche League leader!" I had contacted my local LLL chapter, but haven't yet heard back. So today, I went on their website to see exactly how I might best become a supporter of LLLI and possibly become a leader.
The first and foremost requirement is that you be a mother who has breastfed her children. I can understand why this might be recommended, or even what might bring a woman to become a LLL Leader in the first place, but a requirement? I do not wish to insult the amazing women who work with LLLI, nor do I want to discredit the invaluable work they have done to promote breastfeeding in their communities, but this seems unfair.
One could defend LLLI: "Well, a breastfeeding mom would know what the women she serves is going through." This is true, but any woman who has breastfed more than one child can tell you that each baby is different; I sincerely doubt an LLLI leader, regardless of how many children she's breastfed herself, can personally relate to each and every experience brought forth by a mom that needs some assistance breastfeeding.
I have encountered the same in my work as a doula. One of the first questions several prospective clients have asked me is, "Do you have children yourself?" I have been rejected outright from even being granted an interview for this reason, while others have simply chosen not to hire me without saying why. I have also heard of women not wanting a doula who has not VBAC'ed, home birthed, had a cesarean, birthed twins, etc. While I believe firmly that it is their right to choose the doula they feel best fits their needs, the idea that non-moms make crap doulas is pervasive to a fault.
A woman at an online doula forum I read agrees that non-moms are ineffective doulas. Her thought process: "Would you hire a fat nutritionist?"
Okay, first of all, we're talking about totally different things here. A nutritionist who preaches good health but chooses to eat unhealthy foods is not the same thing as a woman who has chosen to not have children yet. Eating healthy and entering into a lifetime commitment where your entire existence is consumed with taking care of another human being are completely different things. Besides, who's to say an unhealthy nutritionist chooses to eat unhealthy foods? And who's to say a woman who doesn't have kids has chosen not to have them? What if this nutritionist has a thyroid problem? What if this non-Mom is unable to get pregnant, or has had multiple miscarriages, or has lost a baby? Or, {gasp} that she just doesn't want kids but sees value in providing support to those who do? Saying a woman who has never had children is a bad doula is like saying a doctor who has never had brain surgery is a bad neurosurgeon.
Secondly, as I mentioned before, each and every pregnancy and birth is different. Even if you find a doula who has VBAC'ed, or cesarean birthed, or home birthed, or whatever, your experience is highly unlikely to be a carbon copy of hers. Besides, doulas don't just run on their own experience; if we did, we'd only be able to support women who were having identical pregnancies, which of course would be useless. Doulas are professionals. We are professionally trained, and we are trained to provide support for a variety of birthing experiences. A woman who has had twenty kids is no better at providing labor support as a woman who has, for whatever reason, had none. (Would you hire Michelle Duggar as your doula? Me neither.)
So back to La Leche League. I understand that LLLI was established by breastfeeding moms, that their entire tradition was built on peer support and a sense of camaraderie. Maybe the issue is that we need to expand our understanding of what "peer support" can be. Maybe, instead of assuming that similar experiences makes you better able provide support, we need to understand that all women are able to support one another as a collective sisterhood. Sisterhood, the basis for which feminism was established, crosses boundaries. It transcends race, age, and class. Isn't sisterhood what the founders of LLLI were looking for? Even if I have not (yet) experienced childbirth and breastfeeding in my own life, does that make me wholly incapable of providing support to those who have? It goes back to training, and training I have. The LLLI motherhood requirement smacks of identity politics, an outdated movement building tool that divides instead of unites. Solidarity should be the model for childbirth and breastfeeding support organizations, not exclusion.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Bullying Takes Another Life
Tyler Clementi was a Rutgers University first year who friends describe as "a terrific musician, and a very promising, hardworking young man." But last week, he left a note on his Facebook page: "Jumping off the gw bridge sorry."
What happened to turn this promising, talented violinist into a suicide statistic? The answer may not surprise you.
Shortly before his death, Clementi asked his dorm roommate for privacy. His roommate, Dharun Ravi, consented, but covertly turned on his webcam before leaving. He later tweeted: "Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly's room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay." Two days later, he followed up, "Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it's happening again." Ravi went on to broadcast the live stream on the internet.
Dharun Ravi and Molly Wei, both 18, have been charged with two counts each of invasion of privacy. Ravi has also been charged with two more counts of invasion of privacy for taping the second encounter. It is a fourth-degree crime to collect sexual images without consent, and transmitting them is a third-degree crime that could lead to a five year prison sentence.
The whole story makes me sick to my stomach. I can't even begin to imagine the shame, the feelings of over-exposure, that drove Clementi to feel like suicide was his only option. Being videoed in a more socially-acceptible, man-woman encounter would be bad enough, but having your sexuality exposed, being literally dragged out of the closet to hundreds of perfect strangers, is enough to make anyone feel as though there's no good way out. It is a stark reminder of how prevalent bullying is and how dire the consequences can be.
My heart goes out to the friends and family of this young man whose life was taken far too soon by a society that saw his personal life as a side-show prank, an entity to be hunted and exposed, instead of a human being deserving of privacy, respect, and love.
What happened to turn this promising, talented violinist into a suicide statistic? The answer may not surprise you.
Shortly before his death, Clementi asked his dorm roommate for privacy. His roommate, Dharun Ravi, consented, but covertly turned on his webcam before leaving. He later tweeted: "Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly's room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay." Two days later, he followed up, "Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it's happening again." Ravi went on to broadcast the live stream on the internet.
Dharun Ravi and Molly Wei, both 18, have been charged with two counts each of invasion of privacy. Ravi has also been charged with two more counts of invasion of privacy for taping the second encounter. It is a fourth-degree crime to collect sexual images without consent, and transmitting them is a third-degree crime that could lead to a five year prison sentence.
The whole story makes me sick to my stomach. I can't even begin to imagine the shame, the feelings of over-exposure, that drove Clementi to feel like suicide was his only option. Being videoed in a more socially-acceptible, man-woman encounter would be bad enough, but having your sexuality exposed, being literally dragged out of the closet to hundreds of perfect strangers, is enough to make anyone feel as though there's no good way out. It is a stark reminder of how prevalent bullying is and how dire the consequences can be.
My heart goes out to the friends and family of this young man whose life was taken far too soon by a society that saw his personal life as a side-show prank, an entity to be hunted and exposed, instead of a human being deserving of privacy, respect, and love.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
My Complex Relationship with ACOG
ACOG is once again throwing its weight around on home birth, this time using shocking yet largely meaningless language to scare women from making informed decisions about birthing options.
An ACOG position statement claims home birth "triples the neonatal death rate" and accuses home birthing women of "plac[ing] the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby." This statement in and of itself is problematic, as surely you'd think a highly respected organization of doctors realize that processes usually dictate outcomes. A home birthing woman who is under the care of an experienced medical professional (a midwife) is likely to experience a low intervention birth in the comfort of her home. Because childbirth is a natural process as old as time itself, our bodies are fully capable of creating, growing, and delivering new live into the world. In most cases, this process is going to happen on its own, and the results are going to be healthy.
Which is not to say I don't see the place of medical science in prenatal and neonatal care. Complications arise, and it is important for home birthing women to be able to make informed decisions about when home birth is and is not a healthy option. Additionally, the midwife needs to be able to step in and suggest a transfer when she feels the situation has gone beyond her ability. When these complications arise, whether they're in the prenatal or neonatal period, we are fortunate enough to live in a society that can handle the problem and work diligently towards good outcomes for both mom and baby. (Though, our track record on this isn't as good as it should be, nor is it up to par with the rest of the developed world, but that's another post.)
However, a culture that assumes there will be problems and therefore micromanages the entire process from start to finish is outright harmful to women, their babies, and their birthing experiences. Additionally, many of these routine interventions cause more problems than they prevent, and if they weren't being carried out solely in a hospital environment, I guarantee we'd see higher neonatal mortality rates associated with them as well. I could go on and on, but I'll let The Business Of Being Born explain:
But getting back to the statement by ACOG. All of my work around debunking myths perpetuated by the anti-abortion camp (strangely enough with much information via ACOG) has taught me the difference between relative risk and actual risk. When the antis say abortion increases your odds of developing breast cancer by 50%, they're talking about relative risk. When they say the Pill increases your chances of experiencing heart attack or stroke by 50%, they're talking about relative risk. And all of their research is coming from meta-analysis, a method of data interpretation which is not appropriate for determining cause and effect.
ACOG knows this, but it doesn't stop them from utilizing the very same tactics as the antis, though ACOG's enemy is home birth. Their expert statements on the purported abortion-breast cancer link debunks the claims of anti-choice researchers by specifically stating that meta-analysis is not appropriate in determining cause and effect, and relative risk is not basis for overtly issuing scare-tactics disguised as medical research. And yet they turn right around and use research they know to be flawed in order to demonize home birth.
The American College of Nurse-Midwives issued this statement in response to ACOG's claims regarding home birth: "We are puzzled by the authors’ inclusion of older studies and studies that have been discredited because they did not sufficiently distinguish between planned and unplanned home births — a critical factor in predicting outcomes." ACOG's language in and of itself is meant to skew the reality of home birth risk. When they say the neonatal death rate is tripled, they are discussing a relative risk. From Medscape writer Andrew Vickers:
The reality is that birth is normal, and in the case of many women, home birth is an option that can be as healthy (if not moreso) than entering into a high-intervention hospital system where their bodies will be micromanaged. It is up to each woman and her family, not ACOG or the government, to make informed decisions about their birthing options, and they need to be able to readily find information that is evidence-based, unbiased, and accessible. Shock-doctrine headlines like "Home Birth Triples Neonatal Death Rate" is not any of the above.
P.S. How offensive is it for ACOG to charge that women only choose home birth because it's "trendy" and in-vogue??
An ACOG position statement claims home birth "triples the neonatal death rate" and accuses home birthing women of "plac[ing] the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby." This statement in and of itself is problematic, as surely you'd think a highly respected organization of doctors realize that processes usually dictate outcomes. A home birthing woman who is under the care of an experienced medical professional (a midwife) is likely to experience a low intervention birth in the comfort of her home. Because childbirth is a natural process as old as time itself, our bodies are fully capable of creating, growing, and delivering new live into the world. In most cases, this process is going to happen on its own, and the results are going to be healthy.
Which is not to say I don't see the place of medical science in prenatal and neonatal care. Complications arise, and it is important for home birthing women to be able to make informed decisions about when home birth is and is not a healthy option. Additionally, the midwife needs to be able to step in and suggest a transfer when she feels the situation has gone beyond her ability. When these complications arise, whether they're in the prenatal or neonatal period, we are fortunate enough to live in a society that can handle the problem and work diligently towards good outcomes for both mom and baby. (Though, our track record on this isn't as good as it should be, nor is it up to par with the rest of the developed world, but that's another post.)
However, a culture that assumes there will be problems and therefore micromanages the entire process from start to finish is outright harmful to women, their babies, and their birthing experiences. Additionally, many of these routine interventions cause more problems than they prevent, and if they weren't being carried out solely in a hospital environment, I guarantee we'd see higher neonatal mortality rates associated with them as well. I could go on and on, but I'll let The Business Of Being Born explain:
But getting back to the statement by ACOG. All of my work around debunking myths perpetuated by the anti-abortion camp (strangely enough with much information via ACOG) has taught me the difference between relative risk and actual risk. When the antis say abortion increases your odds of developing breast cancer by 50%, they're talking about relative risk. When they say the Pill increases your chances of experiencing heart attack or stroke by 50%, they're talking about relative risk. And all of their research is coming from meta-analysis, a method of data interpretation which is not appropriate for determining cause and effect.
ACOG knows this, but it doesn't stop them from utilizing the very same tactics as the antis, though ACOG's enemy is home birth. Their expert statements on the purported abortion-breast cancer link debunks the claims of anti-choice researchers by specifically stating that meta-analysis is not appropriate in determining cause and effect, and relative risk is not basis for overtly issuing scare-tactics disguised as medical research. And yet they turn right around and use research they know to be flawed in order to demonize home birth.
The American College of Nurse-Midwives issued this statement in response to ACOG's claims regarding home birth: "We are puzzled by the authors’ inclusion of older studies and studies that have been discredited because they did not sufficiently distinguish between planned and unplanned home births — a critical factor in predicting outcomes." ACOG's language in and of itself is meant to skew the reality of home birth risk. When they say the neonatal death rate is tripled, they are discussing a relative risk. From Medscape writer Andrew Vickers:
In place of a "tripling in death rate," the more informative statistic is the absolute increase in neonatal death associated with home birth. On the basis of the results tables, it is possible to calculate that this turns out to be 1 neonatal death per 1000 women who choose home birth. However, the results tables show that those women would also experience some benefits, including 40 fewer premature labors, 45 fewer cesarean sections, 140 fewer vaginal lacerations, and 140 fewer epidurals.Vickers goes on to say that, truly, weighing the cost-benefit ratio between infant mortality and maternal morbidity can seem, well, dark. But it's something each and every pregnant family does every day when choosing birthing options, deciding on a care provider, creating a birth plan, and making decisions about where and how they will bring their children into the world. Every obstetrician does this, too, when faced with a prenatal patient who is experiencing a complication. Maybe that's the issue ACOG is having with home birth, that it becomes far more the family and not the doctor who is in charge.
The reality is that birth is normal, and in the case of many women, home birth is an option that can be as healthy (if not moreso) than entering into a high-intervention hospital system where their bodies will be micromanaged. It is up to each woman and her family, not ACOG or the government, to make informed decisions about their birthing options, and they need to be able to readily find information that is evidence-based, unbiased, and accessible. Shock-doctrine headlines like "Home Birth Triples Neonatal Death Rate" is not any of the above.
P.S. How offensive is it for ACOG to charge that women only choose home birth because it's "trendy" and in-vogue??
Monday, September 27, 2010
Who's The Terrorist?
Today's post will take the form of a picture game I just made up. It's called "Raided vs. Not Raided." Let's see how ya do...
1. Which picture represents a movement has been targeted by the FBI for suspected material support for terrorism?
2. Which sign has led to FBI investigations?
4. Which activist can be seen getting high-fives from several police officers?
5. EXTRA CREDIT. How likely are the targets of the FBI raids to be arrested and charged with any offense, small or large?
Answers:
1. A. The latest FBI raids involved peace and justice activists who were suspected of supporting "terrorism" in Palestine and Columbia. Minnesota resident Jessica Sundan told the press, "I don’t know what they’re looking for, but I do know that I’ve been an outspoken activist for peace and justice, opposing U.S. government intervention in other countries, including Colombia, which was one of the places listed on the warrant." The picture on the right depicts a tea party activist threatening armed resistance.
2. B. The FBI also raided the home of Hatem Abudayyeh, director of the Arab American Action Network, whose banner is shown on the right. The photo on the left is a recent shot of an anti-abortion protester.
3. B. Citing connections with "Colombian terrorist organizations," this week's FBI raids also targeted immigrants rights activities. The sign on the left is from a National Organization for Marriage rally.
4. A. The man with the rifle is at an anti-Obama rally where the president was speaking nearby. The man in the picture on the right is anti-war activist Hatem Abudayyeh, also targeted by this week's FBI raids.
5. Highly unlikely. Historically, raids on anti-war, peace, and justice activists very rarely end in arrest or provide any incriminating evidence. However, these raids are meant to send a message to social justice advocates everywhere: keep it quiet and non-threatening, or we may be at your door tomorrow. On the flip side, I have yet to hear of any FBI investigations on the men who bring guns or warnings of guns to conservative rallies, whereas unarmed peaceful activists are regularly targeted by local and federal law enforcement.
1. Which picture represents a movement has been targeted by the FBI for suspected material support for terrorism?
2. Which sign has led to FBI investigations?
3. Which message has prompted the FBI to raid the homes of several Minnesota and Chicago residents?
4. Which activist can be seen getting high-fives from several police officers?
5. EXTRA CREDIT. How likely are the targets of the FBI raids to be arrested and charged with any offense, small or large?
Answers:
1. A. The latest FBI raids involved peace and justice activists who were suspected of supporting "terrorism" in Palestine and Columbia. Minnesota resident Jessica Sundan told the press, "I don’t know what they’re looking for, but I do know that I’ve been an outspoken activist for peace and justice, opposing U.S. government intervention in other countries, including Colombia, which was one of the places listed on the warrant." The picture on the right depicts a tea party activist threatening armed resistance.
2. B. The FBI also raided the home of Hatem Abudayyeh, director of the Arab American Action Network, whose banner is shown on the right. The photo on the left is a recent shot of an anti-abortion protester.
3. B. Citing connections with "Colombian terrorist organizations," this week's FBI raids also targeted immigrants rights activities. The sign on the left is from a National Organization for Marriage rally.
4. A. The man with the rifle is at an anti-Obama rally where the president was speaking nearby. The man in the picture on the right is anti-war activist Hatem Abudayyeh, also targeted by this week's FBI raids.
5. Highly unlikely. Historically, raids on anti-war, peace, and justice activists very rarely end in arrest or provide any incriminating evidence. However, these raids are meant to send a message to social justice advocates everywhere: keep it quiet and non-threatening, or we may be at your door tomorrow. On the flip side, I have yet to hear of any FBI investigations on the men who bring guns or warnings of guns to conservative rallies, whereas unarmed peaceful activists are regularly targeted by local and federal law enforcement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)