...But rational analysis doesn’t hold sway with the pregnancy police.Indeed, Mr. Shaw.
“Why take any risk?” they ask. The medical establishment and the culture at large have twisted logic around to the point where any risk, no matter how infinitesimal, is too much. So powerful is this Puritanical impulse that, once a health objection is raised, however irrational the recommended behavior, it’s considered irresponsible to behave any other way.
There’s a temptation to say there’s no harm in this type of thinking. Women should simply not eat sushi for nine months; surely that’s no big deal.
But there are problems with this approach. For one thing, between the warnings about parasites in sushi and about mercury in certain species of fish, pregnant women are being scared off fish altogether. And that’s bad news, since the fatty acids in fish are the ideal nourishment for a developing baby.
For another thing, the sushi ban is insulting to Japanese culture. It speaks of ignorance and prejudice to reject one of that culture’s basic foods based on unfounded health claims. And perhaps most important, pregnancy should be a time of joy, not stress. The result of an over-regulated pregnancy is fear and negativity. Perhaps the best antidote would be to relax with a salmon roll and a nice sake.
How do you feel about your life now? What would you change or wish had been different?Everything else I'd ever seen presented kids and a creative career as an either/or proposition.
I love living almost as well as I love writing.
It was tough trying to keep writing while bringing up three kids, but my husband was totally in it with me, and so it worked out fine. Le Guins' Rule: One person cannot do two fulltime jobs, but two persons can do three fulltime jobs — if they honestly share the work.
The idea that you need an ivory tower to write in, that if you have babies you can't have books, that artists are somehow exempt from the dirty work of life — rubbish.
It also seems to trivialize the choices made by child-free couples/people.Oh, I see. The way I interpreted it was that it was mocking the notion that child-birth is hard, or calling those who focus on other things (career, etc.) selfish or immature. I see now that there's a lot of stuff in it about privilege, which suggests that your interpretation makes more sense.
I don't understand how this essay has anything to do with child-free people. If the woman in the story were child-free by choice, she would (IME) take care of it either pre-conception or after.
So... what exactly is the point this is making?
That it's kind of ridiculous for women like me - who admit that they eventually want children, have a steady well-paying job with a steady, well-paid husband in a great neighborhood with family support - to say that they "can't have kids yet." Because we absolutely could, if we prioritized it. Why do we imagine that raising a child is such a momentous endeavor, requiring the resources of a NASA shuttle launch?
posted by muddgirl at 5:06 PM on June 3 [6 favorites +] [!]
"By all means, do everything exactly right. Things are still going to get really fucked up from time to time."Sure, there's still variance. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to make +EV choices.
« Older “If you try to do what they do in West Virginia in... | Mineralia... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:53 PM on June 3, 2011 [18 favorites]