Several women I know are pregnant right now. This should be a joyous experience, and mostly it has been despite the physical symptoms that are no picnic, but one thing that’s causing all these women some grief is:
You.
You, the friend, family member or random asshole in the grocery store who feels the need to advise them on what they should eat, do, wear, be around or name their offspring. You, the person who hassles them with all the horror stories of all the pregnancies you’ve ever heard of third person, let alone experienced. You tell yourself, “Oh, I’m being so helpful – five points to me on the scoreboard of life!” but really, you’re just being a smug turd and using this woman as an object to bolster your own ego. You need to shut right up, and failing that, our society needs to accept that if a pregnant woman stuffs a very smelly sock down your throat, it’s not that her hormones are acting up: it’s that you are being an asshole and objectifying this woman.
Unless you have solid reasons to suspect this woman isn’t under a doctor’s care at all or is smoking pounds of crack or something equally drastic, shut up. Do not think to yourself, “She’s buying brie cheese and cat food – clearly, her doctor is a quack or she’s ignoring the doctor’s advice, so I, a mid-level manager in a factory, should immediately dispense second-hand medical advice in the interest of saving not one but two lives!” And here we get to the real reason why you feel the urge to intervene if you think a pregnant woman’s being exposed to cat turds: it’s a two-for-the-price-of-one dime store hero act. You go home and tell yourself you’ve saved a baby and some vessel-thing it was in, so YAY YOU!
Except not. This is how the ego works: it lies to you to get its way without interference from your conscience or common sense. All you’ve really done is contribute further to her stress levels which, ironically, is not so good for the health of her or the baby. You haven’t helped anybody. You’ve actually done some harm, and if you’d engaged your empathy before using her, you might have noticed her discomfort.
Why, oh, why is the mean old feminist being so mean to you? Well, let’s talk about that.
- When a woman gets pregnant, a lot of people around her lose sight of the fact she’s a human being. She becomes an object/event, and people limit their discourse with her to the topic of her pregnancy. Suddenly, everything she does twenty-four hours a day is supposed to be about the baby. She disappears from the equation. A woman’s brain does not hibernate for nine months because there’s a baby inside her. If you don’t think she deserves consideration as a human, then at least be aware that an “incubator” who’s stressed and unhappy is not an optimal environment for the developing new life you actually value. Doctors understand this: that’s why they aim to keep both the woman and the developing baby as healthy and comfortable as possible.
- Pregnant women are not “crazy” because their hormones go all funky. In fact, pregnancy has a stabilizing effect on several mental illnesses. Pregnant women only appear “crazy” to you because they are suddenly being subjected to harassment like they’ve probably never experienced before, but you have the privilege of not realizing this (and yes, even if you are a formerly pregnant woman yourself, that doesn’t mean you realized how badly you were being treated before passing on the same behaviors). They’re under tremendous stress, because there’s all sorts of contradictory information about what they should do to ensure their baby’s well-being, and they’re doing their best, and they know if anything goes wrong, not only will they worry like crazy, but they know they have to look forward to assholes like you sitting in judgment…
- …because that’s what it’s really about for you. It’s about feeling superior.
“But but but,” you say, aghast at my terrible attitude, “I really just want to help! I don’t feel superior! Well, I mean, obviously I know something she doesn’t so I feel better informed, perhaps, but not superior, per se.”
My response follows. Observing that someone is pregnant and giving them unsolicited advice about it is a lot like observing someone has a really fantastic secondary sexual characteristic and giving them unsolicited comments about it. What you are saying is, “I’m monitoring your body for you. As a representative of your overlords, I have to tell you, here’s what we think of your body and what you are doing with it.”
Not only do you not know everything, but neither do doctors. Different doctors make different recommendations to pregnant women regarding diet and activity. Different countries tend to give contradictory advice. Who died and made you S/He Who Knows What You Should Really Do When You’re Pregnant?
You need to realize that this behavior is actually all about you. It’s about your need to feel special, your need to participate in what’s none of your business, your need to connect with someone (and your discovery that pregnant women are easy targets). Get over it.
{ 57 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
I notice it a lot with mental illness.
Oh, good point. If you know or suspect someone has a specific disorder, you can start to think of your interactions with them as interactions with a [diagnosis here] rather than interactions with a person. I admit I’ve fallen into this trap myself.
In fact, you can even do this with yourself. A diagnosis can be such a huge relief that you start to see it in everything you do and every experience you’ve had, but it’s not the whole of you, or even the whole of your personality. (Unless you have a full-blown personality disorder, which is kind of the point of those very tragic and untreatable diagnoses.)
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
If you know or suspect someone has a specific disorder, you can start to think of your interactions with them as interactions with a [diagnosis here] rather than interactions with a person. I admit I’ve fallen into this trap myself.
Or those illnesses which are both neurological and physiological or have yet to be fully understood by anyone – fibromyalgia or CFS or various forms of depression have severe physical symptoms people often dismiss as “it’s all in your head, why can’t you get over it?”
As if it’s the easiest thing in the world.
sbg(Quote) (Reply)
Jennifer: Not that humans on a whole are in danger of going extinct…
The Other Patrick(Quote) (Reply)
I never even thought that my big pregnant belly (when it gets big as I’m not far along and not showing yet) would be perceived beyond the tummy-grabbing stranger that I’ve been warned about.
Sadly I think a lot of people look for/are relieved to find reasons to dehumanize other people. It makes things less complicated to be dealing with a disorder, a color, a gender or a pregnancy than it is to deal with a whole-very complicated-person. And it also gives people the ability to treat others as sub-human which sadly so many people do to so many others.
Specifically in regards to pregnant women, it also seems so strange to me that people will act so oddly towards pregnant women like it is a huge anomaly. Women get pregnant all the time. We have mothers, so we all were born out of one! But it is fetishized and mystified and medicalized. Humanity has been having women get pregnant long before humans were human. Yes, when it is YOU that is pregnant it is exciting and it is great to get a book and learn what’s going on (just like any major bodily changes) but otherwise…what’s the big deal with everyone?
amymccabe(Quote) (Reply)
Jennifer: Not that humans on a whole are in danger of going extinct…
Nah, not from declining birth rates, anyway. And yet that has been offered to be as a reason why I should celebrate other people having babies. It’s like some people think life is a team sport, and we win something if we outnumber the rats.
Sadly I think a lot of people look for/are relieved to find reasons to dehumanize other people. It makes things less complicated to be dealing with a disorder, a color, a gender or a pregnancy than it is to deal with a whole-very complicated-person. And it also gives people the ability to treat others as sub-human which sadly so many people do to so many others.
This is really insightful. It IS easier to wrap your mind around one label that applies to a person rather than the whole person. Some people just don’t bother to think, but even the best critical thinker sometimes gets overwhelmed and reaches for a shortcut.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Oh, Germany is as obsessed with replicating
as any other country, it is just the way we are handling it that is totally stupid. Instead of opening additional child care facilities we pump money into campaigns with cutesy baby-fotos and promoting yet another un-reality show with pregnant celebs. I don’t know for sure of course, but I think there are more singles who would like to have children, but not wanting to deal with difficulties of choosing the right partner, who is not only someone who makes one happy, but also a good parent. Though I agree that there are a lot of couples who aren’t aware that having children is not only cute baby-smiles, but also hard work and responsibility. The worst reason for getting married I’ve ever heard in line of work was “there was nothing an TV that weekend”, the marriage lasted all of eight days. (the most baffling thing is, I am pretty sure she wasn’t joking). Someone like this having children? Even if their physical needs are met, I don’t believe the children wouldn’t suffer the emotional emptiness and lack of possibilities.
Other Patrick: Yepp, that pretty much sums it up. It also means that you usually need double income, if you want to have a semblance of autonomy, or be able to dictate your conditions at work.
Elee(Quote) (Reply)
Elee, in Australia, we have a ‘baby bonus’ which is, I think, $5k/baby you have. The idea is to encourage people to become parents and up the birth rate. And of course no-one with a grain of sense or responsibility – you know, the kind of people we WANT having children – has a baby just for the $5k so from what I hear anecdotally, the tiny increase in births over the last few years can be attribubted to people like teenage girls who want the cash for a holiday but mummy and daddy won’t pony up. (And yes, I realise most teenage girls have more sense than that.)
And as a side note, adoptive parents are excluded. Given that our standards for adoptive parents are among the highest/strictest in the world, you’d think that idealling that makes them the people you WANT having kids, but no bonus for them.
scarlett(Quote) (Reply)
Jennifer Kesler said:
Even better and more analogous to my original point:
People of Color are not “crazy” when they say you are behaving in a racist manner – they are simply observing that which your privilege shields you from having to recognize.
That’s actually sort of the opposite of what I was going for, since that that kind of reproach itself is a judgmental attitude.
Jack(Quote) (Reply)
That’s actually sort of the opposite of what I was going for, since that that kind of reproach itself is a judgmental attitude.
Huh? Not following.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
And of course no-one with a grain of sense or responsibility – you know, the kind of people we WANT having children
Y HELO THAR eugenics! The baby bonus is available to adoptive parents and has been since 2004.
What kind of people do you think we should *want* to have children? White people? Rich people? Educated people? Older women? And what evidence do you have to teenage girls getting pregnant because they want a holiday when “mummy and daddy” could pay for one instead? $5000 doesn’t go very far for a holiday, let alone a baby. Your entire comment reeks of the kind of entitlement and control over pregnant women that the original post is arguing against.
lilacsigil(Quote) (Reply)
scarlett, we have a monthly bonus of about 180 Euro per child, until it has completed its education, which is I think a much better approach. The whole discussion got me thinking, how demeaning it actually is to offer a monetary bonus for having children, be it a monthly payment or a one-time. The government buys itself a clear conscience “Duh, it isn’t working, but we have done something” and the practice reminds me uncomfortably of other things, because the essence of it is: You need more children/future workers? Buy them. Jenn, of course not everyone wants to have children, and ultimately it is an individual choice. But I think there are enough people out there, who want, but aren’t because like Patrick said there is no middle ground for them. And children aren’t everything in life.
Oh and don’t get me started on all the ridiculous obstacles if you want to adopt or have an in-vitro, but are either in a same-sex-relationship or single or don’t have a steady income.
Elee(Quote) (Reply)
@lilacsigil: Maybe I missed something, but going by the bit you quoted, I assumed Scarlett meant the kind of people we want having babies are those who can think a bit further ahead than “Whoohoo, $5000!” so that every child might be a wanted child rather than a means to an end.
Additionally, I thought Scarlett’s example specifically indicted a theoretical rich girl whose rich (probably white) parents could fork over $5k, but won’t. I don’t see that as suggesting rich white people are automatically better parents than anyone else?
Also: “5000 doesn’t go very far for a holiday, let alone a baby.”
Wow, privilege much? Most people in the US can’t afford to spend anything like $5k on a vacation, and the Aussie and US dollar are never that far apart on spending power. If $5k is your idea of a piddling little crap vacation, you are so much more fortunate than the vast majority of people. By suggesting that every vacation that costs less than $5k was crap, you’re raining on a lot of people’s parades.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I don’t know, I’m with lilacsgirl, Scarlett’s comment was creepy and eugenics-y. It might debatable if someone didn’t say something like that in every discussion on this issue. How can any argument about strangers deciding who is and isn’t a suitable parent NOT go to a eugenics place?
The fact is, we shouldn’t be saying judgmental things about or to women re: their status as incubators whether it’s based on age, income or choices about brie and wine.
If it’s not your body, it’s not your business, and this (likely 100% imaginary) teenager who had the baby just for 5k is none of your business unless it’s you.
Gnatalby(Quote) (Reply)
I’m not very aware of ways other nations handle (or don’t) the costs raising a child. Here in the U.S. for middle class families we might get some tax credits (I’ll find out about that first-hand soon) but that is about all. The Federal government laws state that you can have up to 12 weeks off and can’t lose your job or benefits if you work full time, but I seem to hear of people losing them anyway. If you need bedrest for a good part of your pregnancy, your job probably won’t be there when you’re able to work again. Some states have additional laws protecting jobs and benefits, so don’t. Paid maternity leave is rare.
This is still a barrier to women who want to maintain a career in the US. And once the baby is born, childcare can be very problematic and very expensive. Searching around, most places cost between $700 to $1000 a month. Have two or three kids and it might be cheaper to give up your career.
AmyMcCabe(Quote) (Reply)
I agree Scarlett’s strawperson was a problematic choice, and if that’s what you all are reacting to, okay. But:
How can any argument about strangers deciding who is and isn’t a suitable parent NOT go to a eugenics place?
Well, easily, when you talk about a judge not awarding custody to the parent who’s been molesting the kids in a divorce case. I mean, there is at least one example where “strangers deciding who is and isn’t a suitable parent” is really helpful to society (by helping free kids from abuse) and has nothing to do with eugenics (because it’s based on past action, not supposed predictors of behavior).
But what if someone currently childless was diagnosed as a sociopath? Meaning (just so we don’t trip on semantics) someone with absolutely no conscience or empathy, who sees other people as items to be used and abused, who enjoys inflicting pain, and whose condition cannot be treated by modern medicine. They are absolutely incapable of unconditional love – in fact, the carrot dangling of conditional love is one of their favorite strategies for dehumanizing their children.
That’s an extreme example, and probably one we can agree on. Sociopaths are probably the only group of people you can say, by definition, cannot be good parents. If we could accurately screen and diagnose every adult and then sterilize the ones who are sociopaths, probably no one but other sociopaths would have a problem with it.
It gets trickier when you get into other mental illnesses, age groups, income groups, etc. It’s often problematic because people base their assessments on assumptions – i.e., that it costs $X to give a kid a good start in life, or that depressed people can’t be good parents (which is simply not true). But the state *does* have to decide between the rights of children and their parents in some cases, and it doesn’t always have to be a creepy eugenics discussion.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
@Jennifer – I should say that a $5K holiday is for Scarlett’s straw-woman. I don’t think any of my holidays have cost $500, let alone $5K!
The discussion in Australia has very much focused around who *should* have babies and who shouldn’t, which is why Scarlett’s comment is creepy. The debate here has very much focused around class, age and race – teenagers shouldn’t get the baby bonus, poor people shouldn’t, Aboriginal people shouldn’t – so setting up a teenager as a “bad example” is really buying into that eugenics-flavoured debate.
The idea of “unworthy” mothers has already led to the rule that all women who are receiving welfare payments get the bonus as an income supplement over six months, rather than a bonus. Sounds good, but the lack of choice means that if a woman needs that money to, say, buy a pram, or escape a bad living situation, it’s too bad. And this applies *only* to women receiving welfare payments, based on apocryphal stories like the one that Scarlett tells, and on the idea that partners might try to take the money. It’s for their own good, you see. Women who are not on welfare – apart from the baby bonus, and parental payments, and tax breaks like all nice middle-class people get – are obviously responsible parents.
This went down so well with the public that the next step was to “quarantine” welfare payments for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, meaning that they have most of their welfare payments linked to rent (on property which is contentious in itself) or to the overpriced rort-ridden dumps that call themselves community stores (want to buy a banana? That’s $5, thanks!) That also went down well with voters, so now they’re looking at extending it to parents, disabled people and Aboriginal people everywhere.
You can see why Scarlett’s comments about the people we “want” to have babies hit a nerve. It was a shock to see on a feminist blog.
lilacsigil(Quote) (Reply)
Sorry, could have explained myself better.
When the baby bonus was first brought in, I remember thinking that no-one in their right mind would have a baby solely because the government was giving them $5K to. In monetary terms alone, that about covers nappies for a year and that’s it, let alone other costs like time, career and personal freedoms. I can’t imagine many people thinking ‘yeah, I don’t have the time, money or selflessness to have a baby, but hey, five grand and I’m in!’ I’d take a stab and say the vast, vast majority of people who took up the bonus weren’t actually affected by it in their decision to have a baby and it *was* just a bonus, but I think offering a lump sum of cash per baby will always be problematic, because you *will* get people who can’t see beyond that $5K. And yes, I would much rather an older single woman who’s actally THOUGHT about what she can offer a child having one that a young married in-debt couple who see it as a way of paying off their VISA. I don’t think there’s any corrolation between age/colour/sexuality/gender/class etc and the ability to be a good parent, but I do think offering lump sums of cash for babies is only going to encourage the people who can’t see beyond that lump sum, and I think anyone who lacks that common sense and far-sightedness isn’t going to make the best of parents.
scarlett(Quote) (Reply)
The discussion in Australia has very much focused around who *should* have babies and who shouldn’t, which is why Scarlett’s comment is creepy.
…
You can see why Scarlett’s comments about the people we “want” to have babies hit a nerve. It was a shock to see on a feminist blog.
Well, yes, now that you’ve explained the Australian context to which I wasn’t privvy, I can see that. Without that context, all that bothered me about Scarlett’s comment was that her strawperson was a woman. The first strawperson who leapt to mind for me was the sociopathic man who forces his female partner to get pregnant so he can get $5k to take his mistress somewhere nice. I happen to agree that monetary rewards for having children are a bad idea, generally, including the dependent deduction we have in the US. I believe there are better ways to ease the financial burdens parents face (daycare at workplaces alone could probably save more money AND solve more problems than any tax credit/deduction/bonus) without running even a slight risk of tempting someone to have a child they don’t want. Or to force pregnancy on another for that purpose.
Scarlett has offered some clarification in another comment, and I’ll leave any discussion of that to you and her.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Re: smoking. I have no idea if the theory that it’s better for a woman to cut down then go through the stress and trauma of withdrawal by going cold turkey has any truth to it – don’t know many smokers, let alone pregnant women smokers – but I was talking to a friend who recently had a baby. She’s been on a fairly strict begetarian diet for a good fifteen years – not quite vegan, but she doesn’t eat eggs or cheese and not much in the way of other dairy. Her doctor told her that it was far safer for her to take bucketloads of supplements then start introducing food that was utterly foreign to her body ‘cos it could have made her violently sick which was far worse for the baby than a lack of certain nutrients in their natural forms. One of the things that came up was how critical people had been about her diet, that she was selfish for not eating meat for the baby’s sake, but it made sense to me. I mean, exactly how *good for the baby* was it when the mum is sick as a dog?
Scarlett(Quote) (Reply)
I had an elderly relative who tried to quit smoking once. She started getting chest pains and her doctor told her to go back to smoking again, but to cut it down to smaller amounts. After all, the point of quitting is to get better, not to die. I think this was before patches were available, and I think you could use a patch to counter reactions like that today. The patch would still expose a pregnant woman’s baby to nicotine, which might affect brain development. But if you have no choice, you have no choice. What can you do? Once you’re pregnant, you just have to do your best.
Anemone(Quote) (Reply)
Indeed. When you’re a pregnant smoker, much like many aspects of your pregnancy, what you and your doctor determine is the best course of action for YOU probably will be.
I’ve gotten flak from some family about my Hyperemesis Gravidarum. Generally it is either in the “How dare you not eat a healthy balanced meal!” (Um…because I literally can’t) and “How dare you be taking any kind of medicine while pregnant!” (Because without anti-nausea medicine, I would not be eating at all & I’d probably be hospitalized.) I’ve been working with my doctor on this, someone who has specialized knowledge dealing with these kinds of things. What makes a random person think they know better?
amymccabe(Quote) (Reply)
Thank god for this article. Some people really just need to shut up! Im 35 weeks….and never been so annoyed and fed up to the point of not wanting to go out in public just to avoid people. I dont give a shit. Are you the one having this baby? Did i ask for your opinion or advice? No. So shut your mouth.
preggo(Quote) (Reply)
As a woman who is currently pregnant with twins after having had 7 miscarriages, I so know how this feels.
Except our “friendly advice giver” is a glorified bed-pan cleaner at one of the cities major hospitals and a family member.
At the beginning of this pregnancy, due to the fact that we’ve had so many miscarriages, our perinatalogist put me on about 5 different drugs in order to maintain the pregnancy. This silly little toe-rag troglodyte because of her “vast medical knowledge” (she’s just been accepted into a nursing degree, hasn’t attended any classes yet though) decided to inform me that all these drugs were detrimental to the baby, and I needed to stop taking them yesterday, if not sooner.
She also tried telling us (and still does) that even though I’m on bedrest under Drs orders, that it’s ok for me to get up and do housework.
Seriously, someone needs to tell these well meaning morons that the advice they are dispensing is redundant at best, and in many cases dangerous.
After all, if I had not been educated well enough to know that a Perinatalogist has had 10 years of education and she’s had none, I probably would have taken her advice, and wouldn’t be pregnant now.
Bast(Quote) (Reply)
Just so you all know, the Baby Bonus in AU is now means tested.
I also used to get the glares – though I used to get them at work. I had the misfortune of working in a pub with nightclub in a country town in NSW. I worked there from the time my middle girl (now 5) was around a year old, until a year after my baby girl (now 2 years old) was born. I put up with the smoking, carrying crates full of stuff because noone could restock the bar for me, abuse from co-workers (I even got called a “breeder” by one sneering co-worker. She admitted that she hates children, but we all think it more likely that she hated everyone), and also got told by some customers that I should be “at home with my feet up”.
For the most part, though, I worked with great people, and the regs all knew me well enough to know that I knew what I was doing.
I have a saying, which I continually say to people. “Don’t sweat the small stuff”. Advice from strangers is often wrong. It almost never is relevant to you. People will always judge you, no matter what you do for a living, whether you have children or not, what you look like, or how you dress.
Wear metaphorical blinkers. Turn a blind eye.
and most of all, ignore the Idiots, though that most likely means you’ll be ignoring almost everyone
InfoxicatingLady(Quote) (Reply)
“In fact, you can even do this with yourself. A diagnosis can be such a huge relief that you start to see it in everything you do and every experience you’ve had, but it’s not the whole of you, or even the whole of your personality. (Unless you have a full-blown personality disorder, which is kind of the point of those very tragic and untreatable diagnoses.)”
I’d thank you kindly to not engage in such ableism. The bigger diagnoses do actually affect everything a person does. It doesn’t (necessarily) rule the person’s behaviour, but it does affect everything in small ways. And whether or not we like it, living with a disorder all your life will affect the development of your personality, so taking away the diagnosis (as if we could) would drastically change a person’s personality. It’s very much intertwined.
Either way. You condescending view of these “tragic, untreatable, full-blown personality disorders” is not at all welcome. I have one of those, thank you very much, and while I live my life very differently from your average neuro-typical person, my life is by no means tragic. Tougher than most in certain circumstances, yes, but tragic? Hardly.
Full-blown, untreatable, personality disorders may well be no more noticeable to you than another person’s diabetes, so before you label us tragic and deserving of such pity, try and actually come talk to us first, mkay?
Jemima Aslana(Quote) (Reply)
*raises hand* Daughter of a diagnosed NPD here. Wasn’t being condescending at all. It is tragic that these disorders are untreatable – particularly for children of parents with PDs.
So, next time you assume someone is ignorant and condescending, actually come talk to us first, mkay?
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Thanks for posting this! I got so sick of (not only people touching me when I was pregnant) but the unsolicited advice I got from almost everyone. I really wanted to tell them to STFU but I didn’t.
AB(Quote) (Reply)
← Previous Comments