![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
The times, they are a changin'
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand.
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command,
Your old road is rapidly agin';
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand,
For the times they are a changin'.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g798CHaazwkE1E0TMQv8AZ60Bj1wD91DKPI00
Like all really inevitable and natural development, this one surprised everybody, including me. Well, what the Hell did we all expect? People like babies. Women particularly like babies. Girls - with a few exceptions in whose personal history it is all too easy to read the emotional reasons - intensely love babies. You cannot introduce a baby among a group of schoolgirls without being practically drowned by cooings and bursts of wonder at the cuteness of them. Nobody should have expected that this natural instinct could be for ever silenced by an artificial image of a brilliant career woman, something which, for nine women out of ten, has no reality at all. Women look at Sex and the City with its childless, unmarried, rich, elegant forty-years-old, as they read Hello magazine: as a kind of fable. I do not understand the appeal myself, but I very much doubt whether it has anything to do with daily or real life. Women read their glossy magazines in ordinary, sometimes drab homes, and do not seem to make much of an effort to imitate them. It all seems to me to live in a special space of the mind dedicated to unreality. If any woman identifies with the Sex and the City characters, it cannot be because of their surroundings or careers; it is more a matter of the common complaint about weak, shiftless, commitment-phobic men - which, whether or not it is true, is at least a commonplace female whine. The idea that millions of schoolgirls go out into the great wide world in the hope of becoming top corporate lawyers, marketing VPs, or even fashion designers or Hollywood actresses, seems to me naive in the extreme. Some of them may dream of such things; most of them know that they never will happen. And the universal cultural pressure on girls to regard babies as obstacles in the way of their careers is increasingly nullified by the fact that, across the advanced world, the vast majority of women know that they will have no careers. The idea of spending one's life moving forwards in a job until one achieves a high and permanent rank is outdated, not only for the majority of women, but of men too. The same people who tried to scare us with the fear of being hobbled to babies for life also informed us, in the same breath, that the notion of jobs for life is an outdated superstition.
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide;
The chance won't come again.
And don't speak too soon
For the world's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who that it's namin';
For the loser now will be later to win,
For the times, they are a changin'.
It is a case study in the power and limit of cultural consensus. They removed the stigma from illegitimacy; these days, most people who call someone a "bastard" (and weirdly enough, it is a popular insult) do not know what is meant to be insulting about the term. But they could not remove the attraction from babies, or the magnetism from sex. Every attempt to make maternity unattractive or dreaded must founder on the reality of human nature. A number of people will no doubt absorb these attitudes: they are the kind who, for one reason or another, deviate from the human average. The majority may well learn to repeat them by rote, but will never internalize them; their emptiness will become manifest - they will vanish like mist in the sun - at the sight of a single real baby. You have made it easier, not harder, for your children to have babies. The result, as I said, should have been expected; it is only the result of our universal attachment to statistics - which are, after all, always yesterday's news - that kept us from seeing the obvious.
I am not saying that there will ever be a fad for having babies as such among sixteen-year-olds. One good (or rather bad) experience of childbirth would knock that sort of nonsense on the head, and at any rate even sixteen-year-olds are not that silly. The point is rather that the coming generation is beginning to instinctively see its future, not in terms of career - they learned at the cradle how difficult and fickle a thing it is - but in terms of children, of family, of heirs. These girls know that in nine times out of ten, what will give their lives continuity and content will not be the ever-changing, mostly frustrating, sometimes dangerous and unwelcoming, reality of work, but their families; that their real life is apt to be at home, with a husband or partner if they are lucky, but with a baby anyway. And like young people across the world, they are impatient to start.
The line, it is drawn.
The curse, it is cast.
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin'.
AND THE FIRST ONES NOW WILL LATER BE LAST -
For the times, they are a changin'.
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand.
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command,
Your old road is rapidly agin';
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand,
For the times they are a changin'.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g798CHaazwkE1E0TMQv8AZ60Bj1wD91DKPI00
Like all really inevitable and natural development, this one surprised everybody, including me. Well, what the Hell did we all expect? People like babies. Women particularly like babies. Girls - with a few exceptions in whose personal history it is all too easy to read the emotional reasons - intensely love babies. You cannot introduce a baby among a group of schoolgirls without being practically drowned by cooings and bursts of wonder at the cuteness of them. Nobody should have expected that this natural instinct could be for ever silenced by an artificial image of a brilliant career woman, something which, for nine women out of ten, has no reality at all. Women look at Sex and the City with its childless, unmarried, rich, elegant forty-years-old, as they read Hello magazine: as a kind of fable. I do not understand the appeal myself, but I very much doubt whether it has anything to do with daily or real life. Women read their glossy magazines in ordinary, sometimes drab homes, and do not seem to make much of an effort to imitate them. It all seems to me to live in a special space of the mind dedicated to unreality. If any woman identifies with the Sex and the City characters, it cannot be because of their surroundings or careers; it is more a matter of the common complaint about weak, shiftless, commitment-phobic men - which, whether or not it is true, is at least a commonplace female whine. The idea that millions of schoolgirls go out into the great wide world in the hope of becoming top corporate lawyers, marketing VPs, or even fashion designers or Hollywood actresses, seems to me naive in the extreme. Some of them may dream of such things; most of them know that they never will happen. And the universal cultural pressure on girls to regard babies as obstacles in the way of their careers is increasingly nullified by the fact that, across the advanced world, the vast majority of women know that they will have no careers. The idea of spending one's life moving forwards in a job until one achieves a high and permanent rank is outdated, not only for the majority of women, but of men too. The same people who tried to scare us with the fear of being hobbled to babies for life also informed us, in the same breath, that the notion of jobs for life is an outdated superstition.
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide;
The chance won't come again.
And don't speak too soon
For the world's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who that it's namin';
For the loser now will be later to win,
For the times, they are a changin'.
It is a case study in the power and limit of cultural consensus. They removed the stigma from illegitimacy; these days, most people who call someone a "bastard" (and weirdly enough, it is a popular insult) do not know what is meant to be insulting about the term. But they could not remove the attraction from babies, or the magnetism from sex. Every attempt to make maternity unattractive or dreaded must founder on the reality of human nature. A number of people will no doubt absorb these attitudes: they are the kind who, for one reason or another, deviate from the human average. The majority may well learn to repeat them by rote, but will never internalize them; their emptiness will become manifest - they will vanish like mist in the sun - at the sight of a single real baby. You have made it easier, not harder, for your children to have babies. The result, as I said, should have been expected; it is only the result of our universal attachment to statistics - which are, after all, always yesterday's news - that kept us from seeing the obvious.
I am not saying that there will ever be a fad for having babies as such among sixteen-year-olds. One good (or rather bad) experience of childbirth would knock that sort of nonsense on the head, and at any rate even sixteen-year-olds are not that silly. The point is rather that the coming generation is beginning to instinctively see its future, not in terms of career - they learned at the cradle how difficult and fickle a thing it is - but in terms of children, of family, of heirs. These girls know that in nine times out of ten, what will give their lives continuity and content will not be the ever-changing, mostly frustrating, sometimes dangerous and unwelcoming, reality of work, but their families; that their real life is apt to be at home, with a husband or partner if they are lucky, but with a baby anyway. And like young people across the world, they are impatient to start.
The line, it is drawn.
The curse, it is cast.
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin'.
AND THE FIRST ONES NOW WILL LATER BE LAST -
For the times, they are a changin'.
no subject
I think carreer vs family vs juggling both is a personal choice, and you can't say that one or the other is more "natural". Every woman - and man - needs to decide what is important to him/her, and follow whatever that is. Unfortunately, we are constantly bombarded by often conflicting pressures and expectations, which can make it hard to figure out who we truly are.
Not every woman is born to be a mother. Just as not every woman is born to smash the glass ceiling with her stiletto heels. And the two aren't always mutually exclusive, either! I may turn into a pile of goo when I see a newborn baby, but I have no intention of ending my carreer the moment I get pregnant. At the same time, I'm realistic enough to know that I will never be a top-ranking surgeon or anything similar, because I would like to have a family.
But I don't think any woman who feels differently is weird, unnatural or somehow messed up. Some people just don't want babies. Fair enough. You can create a whole lot of problems by trying to convince such people otherwise. I know several older women who say that if they had their time again, they wouldn't have children. And I know a couple who say they'd have more children if only they still could. It comes down to the individual. There is no rule to define all women.
no subject
Patronizing, much?
As for the rest, please read my response to
no subject
Nope. Realistic. Childbirth is awful, and raising children is hard, hard, hard. A sixteen-year-old is not well-equipped, socially or mentally or emotionally. I'm not saying that a sixteen year old girl can't raise a child, but it really isn't a great situation. Even older women usually don't have much of a clue about what it's really like - they have an idealised view of childbirth and motherhood. I'm not exempt. I've seen many of the horrors that childbirth has to offer, and seen many of the difficulties experienced by friends who have children. Yet still I have this little belief that when it's my turn, everything will be okay, and I'll have perfect, healthy babies who'll sleep at night and not get sick, and not hate me when they're teenagers. But I'm old enough not to base any life-changing decisions on such fantasies.
Patronizing
Re: Patronizing
People might make the decision of what to study between the ages of 16-18, but how many people change their mind? How many people end up switching degrees? How many people switch majors? How many people end up in a job that they never wanted or expected to be in?
That kind of life-changing decision isn't permanent. Generally, a baby is permanent, especially if you plan on actually looking after it! You couldn't just decide a year down the track that you really didn't want it after all. There's always adoption, I guess, but still, I think my point still stands.
Most sixteen year olds aren't mature enough to make that kind of decision. They don't have a clear idea of the consequences. The fact it might have turned out well for you doesn't mean that there weren't plenty of sixteen year olds who got pregnant and ended up giving it away or being irresponsible parents because they just couldn't deal with it.
Re: Patronizing
Re: Patronizing
I've known since the age of twelve exactly what degree I wanted and exactly what job I wanted. I ended up in the degree and am working towards the job. However, the reasons I want the job have changed slightly.
My ideas at the age of sixteen weren't as well thought-out as mine now. I didn't have enough life experience, for one!
I just don't believe the average sixteen year old is any more or less mature than I was at that age. And I wouldn't want the rest of my life affected by one decision I made back then.
Re: Patronizing
Re: Patronizing
Re: Patronizing
Re: Patronizing
Re: Patronizing
As time went by, I became more and more excited about the prospect of doing medicine - and contrary to my expectations, I got in straight away. The life-changing part was comitting myself to another 4 years of uni without a break. In retrospect, I should've taken a year off between my degrees, and not done honours, but worked and then travelled. The decision not to do that was a poor one, and sadly, only experience could've taught me that.
I'm glad my life hasn't been shaped by decisions I made at the age of 16.
Re: Patronizing
When did you make the decision to be a doctor?
When I was about 20. Even then it was up in the air until I actually got in. And being a doctor, unlike having a child, is a decision that can still be undone. I could drop out tomorrow and pusue my science career, or do something else entirely. You can't drop out of raising a child.
Re: Patronizing
Re: Patronizing
Re: Patronizing
Re: Patronizing
Re: Patronizing
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Well I think that article really implied that 16 year olds were more likely to have health problems. But if your mother was a healthy 16 year old who had enough red meat and no real health problems and had mostly passed puberty, and had good doctors, then she would have been fine. Same as a 40 year old who ate correctly, was healthy, fit, etc, would probably be fine having a kid as well. Most of those statistics go on the 'normal' person, and yeah, the normal 20 year old would be far better equipped energy and health wise to deal with a baby. However, I would weigh that up against the fact 20 year olds are rather irresponsible (generally, obviously there are many exceptions!) and while having a baby may make them more mature, I would honestly prefer they wait five years and grow up first. I've seen too many 20 year olds leave their keys, wallets, laptops lying around randomly, or abandon friends when they're bored. I'd really not want to see how they deal with a baby when they realise that it's not all fun, smiles and baby showers.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Parenting classes
Re: Parenting classes
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
And mother nature isn't exactly having the first say these days. 100 years ago, it was typical for a girl to get her first menstrual period at the age of 16 or 17. Of course many became pregnant earlier than that, but a lot weren't actually fertile until they were 18 or so. Nowadays, mainly for nutritional reasons, the average age for a first menstrual period is 12. I got mine when I was 10, meaning I was theoretically fertile around age 11. Even if your mother had you at 16 and did a great job raising you, you can't possibly argue that I would've made a good mother at 11. Just because something is biologically possible, doesn't mean it's a good idea.
And I made some terrible decisions in my teenage years. If I'd got it into my head to have a baby when I was 16, its dad would've been a drug-addicted Year 11 dropout who thought he was the next Marylin Manson. And I was one of the more stable girls among my friends.
no subject
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
As for being commitment-phobic, that is like blaming a blind man for his poor taste in paintings. I never had the opportunity.
no subject
I've never seen that as a good reason to have a child. What if it doesn't end up being different? If you have no reasons to believe that it would end up being different and you don't want children, then banking on that remote hope seems a bit overly idealistic to me.
Personally I learned recently that apparently my distaste for children was shared by both my mother and grandmother. Apparently (or so they claim) they did get over it enough once they had an unwanted pregnancy, but really! It still seems overly idealistic thinking to me.
no subject
Childbirth involves pain, yes, but it does not have to be awful. That is is too often dreadfully awful is problem in our society that has several convergent causes:
1. We expect it to be awful. We set ourselves up for failure in this regard. You know the "sheila-na-gi" carvings found in Ireland and France? Ever wondered why these carvings of women pulling on their own exaggerated labia are carved on churches of all things? A common theory is that they are survivals of pagan ritual, which is why so many Victorian and Edwardian curators tried to systematically excise them. However, another theory holds that they were originally intended as *reassurances* to young mothers: our physiology is designed to let us get HUGE when the time comes. The baby won't get trapped in there! However, if we're panicked about the (possible) pain, we psychologically prevent ourselves from behaving as nature intended.
2. We routinely force women to give birth lying on their backs which puts undue pressure on both mother and child, increasing the difficulty of the birth. The supine position often stops cervical dilation, increasing the risk of tearing. It prevents the child from turning normally as it enters the birth canal leading to a number of complications including "posterior arrest" which doctors generally "correct" by performing a Ceasarean. Then add cramping, numbness, blot clots and pinched nerves to the equation. And top it off with the inherit degradation of the position and feelings of powerlessness that too often accompanies it.
So why do we do it? Habit. Originally the move from birthing stools to birthing tables came about as male doctors took over supervising births from female midwives. The doctors wanted to be able to *see* what was going on. The position is only advantageous to the doctor. The midwives trusted the mothers and vice versa.
3. American hospitals and doctors have a worse habit of administering epidurals, which in addition to blocking pain receptors, also slow dialation and contractions. This, of course, unnaturally slows the labour, but then the doctors want to speed things also (they're on a schedule!) and administer drugs to speed contraction. Which counteracts the epidural. So women ask for more. Which counteracts the the drugs. It's a vicious circle that often ends in bad tearing or resort to Cesarian.
As an addendum to the detrimental effect overuse of epidurals can have on the birth process itself, many women experience permanent back pain afterwards and the doped-up babies (remember, until the umbilical is cut baby gets everything mom gets) often cannot nurse properly for several hours and some cannot even breath properly until the drugs clear their systems.
Child birth is a multi-million dollar revenue stream in the United States, and there is a movement afoot to make home births illegal, thus guaranteeing both more money in doctor's pocket, and the continuation of a system that is actually harmful to both mother and child. A system that makes birth truly, and inescapably awful.
no subject
Believe me: nobody forces anything on these mums. The midwives tell them to get into whatever position they find comfortable. Lying on your back? OK. Lying on your side? Sure. (Occasionally, if the baby's heart rate shows it's a bit distressed, they'll ask the woman to lie on her side, because this can help the baby get into a better position.) Standing up, leaning on a raised bed? Great. In the bath? Sure. All the birthing rooms in the hospitals I've been in have great big bathtubs just for this purpose.
Pain relief is offered if and when the mother wants it. Plenty of mums having their second or third baby never ask for anything. But all the mums having their first end up asking for something. Many will start out saying they don't want an epidural, but once the contractions get really bad, they're begging for it - and cursing the anaesthetist, who's taking ages to show up!
Hell, I know I'll be asking for an epidural when I have a baby. I've seen enough births to know that no matter how compassionate and understanding and lovely the midwives are, pushing a baby out is hell on earth.
Oh, and babies can, and do get stuck. Why do you think so many women used to die in childbirth? There are a gazillion things that can go wrong in labour. Millions of mohters and babies have been saved by performing a c-section. Oh, and by the way, usually doctors here - I don't know about the United States - will do anything and everything to encourage mum to have a normal delivery. C-section is a last resort, when it's too dangerous to deliver vaginally.
Sorry, I just thought I'd point out that even in a health system where hospitals are non-profit organizations, childbirth is generally Not Much Fun. It can be a positive experience for some mums having their second or third child, but a first child is always torture. It's just the way our bodies are.
no subject
Don't get me wrong; I'm not knocking C-sections altogether. My mother was born by one (giving my Dad an excuse when he forgets her birthday: "Well, you weren't actually born ..." Which usually ends with Mom making a "hmrmph" noise). My sister also had one with her fourth child because Aine was in distress (partial placenta previa that tore during labour) And I know that some women lack the the bone structure for a sucessful unassisted birth.
However, the level of C-sections is rampant on this continent - in the US primarily for doctor convienence, but in Canada I've become shocked by the number of first-time mothers who simply schedule a Ceasarian because they don't want to deal with a vaginal birth. (Canada, I believe, sort of sits half way between the US and Britian; we have socialized medicine, but it's not entirely not-for-profit).
(no subject)