• news
  • TUESDAY FEBRUARY 20 2007 11:00 AM

Bearing Responsibility



Why do I care about the rights of pregnant meth users? Let's start small.

For most "respectable" women, the main thing you'll be told when you get pregnant is "don't drink alcohol." In fact, let's grab a beer out of the fridge and look at what the warning label says:

Government Warning (1) According to the Surgeon General, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects. (2) Consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery, and may cause health problems.


Everyone who drinks has seen these warnings, right? So we all know — and when you're pregnant, your doctor will remind you — that pregnant women shouldn't drink.

Notice, in fact, that while pregnant women "should not" drink, non-pregnant women — and men — aren't told what they should, or shouldn't do. They're given the facts — drinking "impairs your ability to drive" and "may cause health problems" — and expected to make their own, informed, decisions. Pregnant women, on the other hand, are told directly what they should do.
There are two implications here: first, that pregnant women are less able than men or non-pregnant women to think for themselves; and second, that alcohol is more dangerous for pregnant women (or their fetuses) than it is for "normal" people.

The first implication — that pregnant women can't think for themselves — is obviously stupid and insulting. If you're like me, when someone tells you what to do, you're inclined to tell them to fuck off. But before we tell the "don't drink while pregnant" crowd to fuck off, let's see what the problems with drinking while pregnant actually are — after all, it's a Big Deal, this pregnancy thing, and we wouldn't want to let knee-jerk attitudes about being grownups (after all, we're pregnant! How much more grownup can you get?) affect our judgment.

So let's move on to the second implication. Is alcohol, in fact, more dangerous for pregnant women than it is for everyone else? To find out, I'm consulting Conceiving Risk, Bearing Responsibility: Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and the Diagnosis of Moral Disorder. I stole the title of this post from the book, by the way. According to the author, Elizabeth Armstrong,

The fact is we simply do not know. . . . while ample evidence indicates that heavy prenatal alcohol exposure can be tetrogenic (that is, cause birth defects) in some pregnancies, . . . the number of fetuses exposed and affected is small.

First, we know that FAS is not an "equal opportunity" birth defect. Fetal alcohol syndrome is highly correlated with smoking, poverty, malnutrition, high parity, and advanced maternal age.
[...]
Second, despite evidence to suggest that FAS may have a genetic component, there has been surprisingly little research. . . . One (kind of evidence) is from studies of twins: the medical literature has reported cases of franternal twins, in which one twin is affected with FAS and the other is not.
[...]
Third, even among women who are alcoholics, only a small number have babies who are affected. . . . In fact, only about 5 percent of children born to alcoholic women have FAS.


Five percent of children born to alcoholics. That ain't much. I think it is fair to say, without dismissing the importance of FAS, that most "normal" women — the kind of women who read alcohol warning labels, who see doctors during pregnancy, who are inclined to think about what they eat and drink — do not have much to worry about. Alcoholics, by and large, don't read warning labels and are far less likely than most of us to get decent prenatal care (which may, in and of itself, be a big part of the problem). If you care about FAS, your primary concern should be helping pregnant alcoholics get prenatal care, which includes treatment for their alcoholism.

Finally, let's don't forget that most women don't realize they're pregnant for a month or two. By which point, if you've been drinking, you've probably already done the majority of whatever damage you're going to do. IME, that ain't much; I went out drinking with my friends every weekend for two months before I realized I was knocked up, and as far as I and my kid's teachers can tell, he's smarter than most of the other kids on the playground. God knows, at 10 lbs 1 oz, he didn't have low birthweight (supposedly one of the markers of FAS). He's reading at grade level, his math is well above grade level, and he can tell you how DNA works, what a metaphor is, and how to build a working rocket.

So yeah. I'm inclined to say that drinking during pregnancy — by which I mean, "drinking during pregnancy by women who aren't alcoholics" — is okay. I'm inclined to think that people who claim that there are "tons" of kids with FAS in public schools are talking out their asses. I'm inclined to think that people who give you the fisheye when you order a cocktail in your seventh month are judgmental assholes. And I'm inclined to think that a lot of the hype around women's "responsibility" not to drink while pregnant is a big, guilt-tripping load of bullshit.

Bitch_PhD likes a good fight, and thinks people who pass judgment on pregnant women need to be smacked.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

9 | 10 | 11

Next

Comments
TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

FEB 24, 2007 03:08 AM

Bitch_PhD said:

TheFuckOffKid said:
I think this is a good place to investigate the "what women get out of porn" question, noting that it cannot always be easily divorced from the issue of what guys get out of it.



P'raps I'll bring it up then. I'm still not done with the pregnant women thing, though, everyone will be happy to know.


Just a suggestion -- it might be useful to think what you can add to the discourse here. It's a site full of nude pictures (mostly, but not entirely, nude female pictures), and a fairly open attitude to sex and sexuality, and apparently that's set the cat among your pigeons amongst your readers. Talking about it at your blog rather than opening up a discussion in here seems like doing a judgemental anthropological study without actually talking to the villagers whose behaviour you are about to judge.

(Your question on your blog about whether it's "theoretically possible" to have women-friendly porn is what I'm getting at. I'd put it that there's no "theory" that can decide this a priori, just one's ideological preconceptions. Alternatively, you could, y'know, ask some women. You'll find there's a few here. That requires you not presuming you're smarter than they are, PhD regardless. See below.)

Well, obviously folks here aren't going to agree with Twisty. [snip]
I think she's smart and funny and the entire *point* of her blog is to explain radical feminism. I know a lot of people fail to understand what she's saying--e.g., not "Real Feminists Never Suck Cock" but rather, "In a Sexist Society, All Sex is Inevitably Tainted by Sexism." Which seems a self-evident premise to me. The question of what one chooses to *do* about one's social embeddedness isn't what she's on about; she's just saying, have some intellectual honesty.


I've been exposed to well and truly enough radical feminism to not be at high risk of misunderstanding Twisty, nor of needing her to keep me intellectually honest.

Let me give you an alternative interpretation of the statement "In a Sexist Society, All Sex is Inevitably Tainted by Sexism": rather than being "self-evident", it's a moveable feast that allows the asserter to judge whoever's behaviour they don't approve of, but at least if it's someone they don't want to personally disapprove of (like, say, a woman going to a strip club), you can always, as her blog's title suggests, blame the patriarchy, right? The unwitting female strip club patron's mind has been addled by the oppressive sexist/capitalist/imperialist value system, and so she's not the problem, so much as the unwitting victim of the prevailing patriarchal structure. Right?

Here Twisty's positively nonplussed:

I am acquainted with dudes who swan around East St. Louis strip clubs on double-dates, with their wives.


Oh my fucking god. Really? With their wives? eeek

That evil patriarchy!

I wonder what she'd make of this. And by that, I mean, whether Twisty would actually take it as an interesting data point ("Hmm, something interesting to consider"wink or whether it'd be just another example of a woman behaving impurely in an impure (sexist) world. That old patriarchal programming just seeps on in, doesn't it.

Y'know, I get that Twisty's blog is about "explaining radical feminism" but, uh, so what? If I pointed you to someone saying "They're smart and funny and the point of their blog is to explain intelligent design", I shouldn't be awfully surprised or unhappy when you shrug your shoulders and turn away.

Heh. I might as easily say that y'all have obviously anticipated some of *your* conclusions. However, we'll leave that debate 'til I tackle the subject; god knows this thread's got enough arguments in it already.



Well, I don't want to speak for any other member of this site, but I've read my Andrea Dworkin. Hell, I even wrote an obituary for her elsewhere on this site.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

TheFuckOffKid said:
I read lots of Dworkin, years ago. I've listed elsewhere her book on pornography as one of my five essential pieces of feminist reading that everyone interested in feminism should read.

That said, she was a brilliant person, and an emotional train wreck, who turned both of those attributes into a career that had a hell of an impact.

Consider that as one of the first, and certainly one of the most significant and influential, feminist theorists on sex, she went through her later life in an asexual relationship with a gay man. The above quote ("But I'm not saying that sex must be rape...sex must not put women in a subordinate position.") soft-soaps her impact. It wasn't just women posing nude, doing porn, or engaging in sex work who felt the wrath of her and her followers. It was women who liked power play in sex, women who liked to be submissive (or dominant!), women for whom sex was vibrant, celebratory and FUN, not a political activity that violated the feminist code if it wasn't completely vanilla.

Dworkin fought for women the way Mother Teresa fought for the poor. Namely, Mother Teresa didn't want to save lives or reduce suffering so much as she wanted to save souls. Andrea didn't so much want to enable women to engage in the pursuit of happiness on equal terms to men, as she wanted (in many cases) to save women from themselves. She couldn't save Susie Bright from herself, so she vented her spleen instead, aiming venom and vitriol at Susie and her ilk.

There wasn't an ounce of detachment, let alone celebration, in Andrea's worldview when it came to sex and the libido. She had neither the arm's length view of the scholar, nor the enthusiasm of the excited participant, on matters carnal. For most of us, sex is (like most things) a yin/yang affair. It's fucking great when the fucking is great, but other times it's dull, banal, emotionally draining, or (at its worst) violent and scary and scarring. But Andrea had no yang to her yin. For her, it was about women being exploited - pretty much end of story. There were no organic or fluid power dynamics in sex (or gender relations generally) as far as Andrea was concerned - in her eyes, if a woman was being fucked, chances are she was being fucked over.

Andrea went where few had gone before. Certainly she was one of the first feminists to seriously attempt theorizing about men, one of feminisms great intellectual lacunae (as it was then, it still is now). Of course, as with her obvious predecessor in this attempt, Valerie Solanas, Dworkin's take on men was viciously one-sided, and one of her lasting legacies is that feminism in its intellectual form remains woefully inept when it comes to actually thinking about men, as opposed to simply positioning them politically.

I think Andrea had to happen. If Andrea hadn't been born, someone would have invented her. (The radical feminists or the radical right, take your pick.) Feminists of all ages need to read Dworkin, confront her ideas, deal with her challenges. But my personal take on it is that I can't for the life of me see why feminists haven't en masse roundly rejected her worldview and started again, knowing that Dworkin was a product of her time. Feminism remains hobbled by her legacy.

My Andrea obituary, anyway. *shrug*



I haven't anticipated a fucking thing.

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

FEB 24, 2007 03:36 AM

Vestril said:
This is all completely off topic, but I like the discussion


You may be surprised to learn that in a meta-sense, it's not as off-topic as it seems.

Vestril said:
I've already stated that I don't think I have "free will," so I can't possibly be acting with it. The ability to make choices is not the same as having free will.


This may be enough to clarify the issue, which isn't an error of logic, it seems, so much as a result of a choice of definitions. If the ability to make choices is not defined as equivalent to (or at least directly related to) "free will" then we can claim free will as an impossibility (without really being able to prove it either way).

I point out that this wasn't completely off-topic for reasons that might be semi-clear from some comments I made up above -- a dominant theme from 1960s/70s feminism that still lingers is the idea that "free will" is a cultural construction. (So, if a girl poses nude for this site, she can't claim to have made a free choice so much as she is taking an action conditional on the cultural/social/political influences that have shaped her thinking and her values. Feminists like Twisty Faster (linked to in previous post) are smarter than everyone else, in the sense that they claim to know when behaviour is feminist or not.)

(I wish I was that smart. Gosh, that'd be fun!)

DeadBilly

DeadBilly

Burnt Cabins, PA
February 2004

FEB 24, 2007 07:31 AM

TheFuckOffKid said:
Here Twisty's positively nonplussed:

I am acquainted with dudes who swan around East St. Louis strip clubs on double-dates, with their wives.


Oh my fucking god. Really? With their wives? eeek

That evil patriarchy!

I wonder what she'd make of this. And by that, I mean, whether Twisty would actually take it as an interesting data point ("Hmm, something interesting to consider") or whether it'd be just another example of a woman behaving impurely in an impure (sexist) world. That old patriarchal programming just seeps on in, doesn't it.



I know what you're saying exactly, and while I've yet to see Twisty say a single thing that makes me want to read her again, this isn't my biggest complaint. What I truly hate is how people like Twisty whine nonstop about female strippers and porn that appeals to men, yet you know her and her amen choir probably go to male strip shows, have their own naked men porn, etc, etc. The hypocrisy is what makes me want to puke.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

9 | 10 | 11

Next