Speaking of copied posts…

This is a post from MDC I thought worth saving. It was in a thread discussing an article titled “Even a little caffeine could harm fetus”, based on the finding (based on the always-accurate self-reporting) that “as little as” 100mg caffeine — a cup of coffee a day — was correlated with an average 7oz reduction in birth weight. My post is in response to several saying that those people poopooing the report were “justifying elective drug use in pregnancy”, and expressing surprise that people at MDC — known for our crunchy, natural ways, and explicitly promoting informed choice and natural birth — would not embrace a message of absolutism and abolition.

For the record, I have fixed a few things that were bugging me in the original: one semi-colon that should have been a colon, and an “8″ that should have been “Eight” since it came at the beginning of a sentence. Yes, I am anal like that.

Also for the record, it has been pointed out to that chocolate does not actually contain caffeine, but rather a “nearly identical” substance that is, in fact, not caffeine. Since the post is about what people say women “should/n’t” do in pregnancy, and the common misconception is that chocolate does contain caffeine, I’m not going to change it. But just to head off even-more-anal-than-I corrective comments: I know chocolate doesn’t have caffeine, and I’m using it as an example anyway, and it’s my blog so I can do that, so there.

Now on to the post…

**************

The reason I get worked up sometimes about “onoz caffeine will KILL YOUR BABY!!!” articles (which this is a minor example of) is the absolutism in them, and the idea that women have to be protected from themselves and can’t think for themselves. It is because I am in favor of weighing risk-benefit ratios that I dislike absolutism and dictatorialism — for some people, a glass of wine or a cup of coffee or a piece of chocolate is worth the infinitesimal risk it may pose to her fetus. Eight soda pops a day? That’s a problem, for about 50 reasons, although it’s still her choice. A half a cup of coffee weekday mornings, or a hot chocolate in the afternoons? Eh. Whatever. More power to you if you choose to abstain based on an informed opinion, or gut instinct, or just ’cause, and not on succumbing to fearmongering.

Each woman, when informed, is entirely capable of making choices for herself. Women do not like to add risk to their pregnancies, and given the choice will gladly make sacrifices (if they have the ability and the support needed) for the health of their babies. But they don’t like to be told they have to live like nuns — or like children! — and if they don’t they’re bad mothers, which is an insult on par with the n word in our society; especially when it is so absolutely clear both that it isn’t necessary to do all those things in order to bear a healthy child, and that society doesn’t really care about babies, or we wouldn’t allow thousands of pounds of mercury in to the air and water in the name of industry and profit, we wouldn’t allow lead in toys and paints and PVC, we wouldn’t blast rocket fuel and POPs and PCBs in to the atmosphere, we wouldn’t allow the marketing of formula, etc, etc…

When we continue to damage all our children with our environmental and industrial choices, but tell women they MUST give up every single pleasurable indulgence or “harm their babies”, it becomes clear to me that this is not just about protecting our future: it is about control of women, of our bodies, of our power to produce the next generation.

So yes, barring overwhelming evidence that a practice is definitely and irrefutably harmful (or highly risky) to her fetus — like, say, heroin use, or smoking, or a bottle of tequila a day — I’m going to maintain that a woman’s right to decide for herself what goes in her body is paramount, and people need to lay off the overly dramatic scolding on all the little things, like a cup of coffee or a piece of chocolate cake.

*************

In a later post, I explicated that yes, this IS about patriarchy and sexism, and no, I don’t think there’s some vast deliberate shadowy conspiracy to keep women down, and that statements and actions can be sexist (and racist and heterosexist for that matter) without the stater or actor intending them to be so, because -isms are pernicious that way. It seems to me that the fact that I have to explicate and explain that on a board full of basically intelligent, thoughtful women says something about the state of feminism today, and I don’t think it’s good news.