Am I wrong *not* to be upset by this?
So we all know how I feel about, say, access to contraception (yes!) and abortion (yes!)... but I'm seriously not upset about those CDC guidelines for women of reproductive age that everyone's been talking (yelling) about.
The Washington Post writes:
"all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control."
Oh, really? Here's a clue, people: All women who want to have a good shot at avoiding serious future health issues -- like type 2 diabetes, or some cancers, or heart disease and stroke -- should be following those guidelines. They're not just for the future babies which the women may or may not choose to have (and yay for that choice!): They're for THE WOMEN. Because guess what? Smoking is BAD FOR YOU. Fatness? BAD FOR YOU. Untreated diabetes? TERRIBLE. Asthma? I guess it's more ANNOYING IN THE SHORT TERM than TRULY DANGEROUS, but I could be wrong, because I'm NOT A DOCTOR YET.
Look, no one wants to be treated like she's no more than the sum of her reproductive parts, and yes, it's a little insulting that the guidelines are not more explicitly geared towards men, who also should be NOT SMOKING and MOVING THEIR FAT ASSES and VISITING THE DOCTOR ON OCCASION.
But on the other hand, have you *seen* spina bifida? Have you? Because it's ugly, and sad, and ALMOST COMPLETELY PREVENTABLE WITH FOLIC ACID SUPPLEMENTS. Folic acid supplements for WOMEN, the ones who GET PREGNANT. (Except in some FEATURE FILMS and NICK AT NITE RERUNS.)
Biology says: TOUGH SHIT, PC-HEADS.
In other words, if I'm going to pick something to be offended about -- and hoo, buddy, are there choices -- it's not going to be a set of guidelines that, incidentally, corresponds to what was taught to my nutrition class in MEDICAL SCHOOL.
(It might be this article instead. JESUS.)
The Washington Post writes:
"all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control."
Oh, really? Here's a clue, people: All women who want to have a good shot at avoiding serious future health issues -- like type 2 diabetes, or some cancers, or heart disease and stroke -- should be following those guidelines. They're not just for the future babies which the women may or may not choose to have (and yay for that choice!): They're for THE WOMEN. Because guess what? Smoking is BAD FOR YOU. Fatness? BAD FOR YOU. Untreated diabetes? TERRIBLE. Asthma? I guess it's more ANNOYING IN THE SHORT TERM than TRULY DANGEROUS, but I could be wrong, because I'm NOT A DOCTOR YET.
Look, no one wants to be treated like she's no more than the sum of her reproductive parts, and yes, it's a little insulting that the guidelines are not more explicitly geared towards men, who also should be NOT SMOKING and MOVING THEIR FAT ASSES and VISITING THE DOCTOR ON OCCASION.
But on the other hand, have you *seen* spina bifida? Have you? Because it's ugly, and sad, and ALMOST COMPLETELY PREVENTABLE WITH FOLIC ACID SUPPLEMENTS. Folic acid supplements for WOMEN, the ones who GET PREGNANT. (Except in some FEATURE FILMS and NICK AT NITE RERUNS.)
Biology says: TOUGH SHIT, PC-HEADS.
In other words, if I'm going to pick something to be offended about -- and hoo, buddy, are there choices -- it's not going to be a set of guidelines that, incidentally, corresponds to what was taught to my nutrition class in MEDICAL SCHOOL.
(It might be this article instead. JESUS.)
posted by gabbiana at 6:21 PM
8 Comments:
It is all good advice, as you say. Only, the packaging - the implication that pregnancy makes women's health important - runs slightly afoul of my Atwood-ometer. And, to be honest, the idea of fielding questions about my current/future sex life from my dentist (and GP and dermatologist and ER nurse) is creepy and somewhat demeaning. It is good that everyone know these things, but given that we are not children, I'm not sure I care for this No Uterus Left Behind approach.
Which is to say: report good, possible uses of report bad. But censorship worse, so, overall, the CDC is still my dawg.
"Chicken shit."
Thank you, Gabbiana.
I'm blogrolling you. Partly because of this post, and partly because of your Marijuana Morality Play.
I really bloody resent being told I'm to keep my body in prime child-bearing condition, and that seems like what they're saying here -- it's not that they care about me as a woman, it's that they care about a mass of cells I may or may not suddenly find myself harbouring, and that's an attitude that is very close to what a lot of anti-abortionists preach, which tends to get people's hackles up like whoa.
Really, I agree with what you're saying, and the advice is good. If you're in good enough condition to bear children, you're probably in a healthy condition for yourself. But there has to be a less offensive way to say it. I mean, is the target audience "women of reproductive age" or "women who are planning a family?" If you say something that people find offensive (like "Hey, you're just an empty vessel, let's get that body into prime shape for all the little babies we expect you to have AND BE HAPPY ABOUT!"), they are going to stick their fingers in their ears, go eat a McHeartAttack and blog about the experience.
THAT is the real reason that people need to be non-abrasive (and PC) when they're giving out important advice. We're meek enough to say "Okay, Bush, you can have access to my phone bill and I won't even raise a stink," but oh, man, be a little diminuating when you're telling someone they're doing it wrong and the shit flies.
Hmmm... just like my health insurance will cover yearly ob/gyn visits, BUT NOT yearly physical.
We're just the sum of our baby-makin parts, so y'all better keep them in good working order.
Thanks for linking to my post.
I see nothing wrong with giving health advice and even targeting health advice to women who want to have kids. However, in the current political climate, the WaPo article comes off as sounding very Handmaid's Tale-ish. It also is insulting to women who don't plan on having kids. It's also worrying when we have cases where the mother can be charged with murder if her fetus dies, which is not unheard of if the Christian Right gets too much influence in the political arena. It almost happened here in Utah: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040426/pollitt
I found this interesting reversal which kind of illustrates the frustration that many women feel over this. The only thing missing is the systematic political attacks against bodily rights leading up to it:
New federal guidelines ask all males capable of ejaculation to treat themselves -- and to be treated by the health care system -- as active studs, regardless of whether they plan to impregnate a female or donate sperm in the near future.
Among other things, this means all men after their first ejaculation should refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight, keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control, avoid known mutagens such as caffeine, and keep their scrotum from extremes of temperature.
Ejaculating men are also urged to avoid participating in sports with fast moving projectiles or other objects which might injure their testicles and cause their sperm to mutate.
I am, by the way, a mother of two kids and I did take good care of myself during pregnancy for their sakes.
I may have taken more offense to the report than most as I still have residual feelings of resentment from being raised in a religion (Mormon) that only valued women for their ability to produce and raise children.
Wait. What vitimins am I suppose to take? I still don't get it.
Dweezel,
Folic Acid (Vitamin B9) is what to take. You're at an increased risk of having a child with Spina Biffida or other neural tube defects if you're Folic Acid deficient when you get pregnant.
I want to applaud your post as well. I think the Washington Post did a dissservice on the way that they treated this research.
The research seems to show that the recommended level of folic acid in our diets is too low. As I understand, the current recommendations were set to prevent anemia in males.
The fact that newborns are getting NTDs indicates that we underestimated the amount of folic acid that should be in our diet.
I wish I could stop the bureaucratic mind from coining terms like "preconception health." But we need to look beyond the idiocies of discourse. The idea of increasing the recommendation of folic acid in women's diets looks sound to me.
Men probably aren't getting enough folic acid. But, that is not the group the CDC was studying in this report.
Post a Comment
<< Home