Are Motherhood and Feminism Incompatible?

I have never considered myself a feminist. I'm not "anti-feminist." I support many of the aims of feminism, such as gender equality in the workplace and advocacy for victims of discrimination, violence, and sexism. But I just haven't felt like I fully identified with the socio-political group of "feminists."

What comes to mind when you think of the feminist movement? Maybe it's women like Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan. Maybe it's politics, like the Equal Rights Amendment and Roe v. Wade. Perhaps it's social issues, such as sexual harassment, domestic violence, or rape. Or maybe it's just Girl!!! Power!!! I'd say all of those are pretty valid answers.

But when you think of feminism, do you think of moms? Probably not. Do you know why? Because the feminist movement doesn't think about moms either.

In the United States, something like 80% of women will have at least one child. That's more than the number of women who obtain bachelor's degrees (26%) and more than the number of women participating in the workforce (60%). But where is the feminist activism on behalf of mothers?

I started with perhaps the most well-known feminist group, the National Organization for Women (NOW). The "Top Priority" issues that NOW works with are listed on the front page of their site: Abortion and Reproductive Rights, Economic Justice, Ending Sex Discrimination, Lesbian Rights, Promoting Diversity and Ending Racism, and Stopping Violence Against Women. Worthy causes, all. When I clicked on "Many more" at the bottom of the list, I found, way down on the list of "Other Important Issues" a link to the Mothers [sic] and Caregivers [sic] Economic Rights page. The issue as NOW sees it is paid parental leave. Their action plan on this issue consists of.... a petition. Oh, and encouragement for women to contact their Senators. Wow, great plan. Things weren't any more promising on the Abortion and Reproductive Rights page. Apparently, the only reproductive rights that NOW supports are the ones that assist women who DON'T want to be mothers. The agenda is abortion, emergency contraception, and birth control access for all women. These are important issues, but do nothing for the women who choose to carry a pregnancy to term.

I next decided to head over to NARAL Pro Choice America. This was another bust, as their platform of issues encompasses only abortion rights, birth control access, sex education, and "Women of Color." Nothing about being pro-choice for women's childbearing options as opposed to pregnancy prevention and termination options.

Surely the ACLU must be working on behalf of mother's rights, right? Wrong. While they have a Women's Rights Project (started by Ruth Bader Ginsburg), the project only focuses on four areas: Employment, Violence Against Women, Criminal Justice, and Education. Again, all important issues, but nothing that directly advances the position of mothers.

I wandered over to the Obama Administration site, Change.org. There is a Women's Rights page, but it looks like news stories, blog entries, and job postings. Nothing resembling any kind of national movement of any type.

This is getting discouraging.

Isn't anyone fighting for better maternity leave policies? For breastfeeding women who are returning to work and need time and a place to pump breastmilk? For women who want to be attended by a homebirth midwife (still illegal in 10 states)? For women who want options other than a court-ordered cesarean section?

Well, how about the National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW)? Now we're getting somewhere! The NAPW includes the following in its mission:

• By focusing on the rights of pregnant women, including those who are continuing their pregnancies to term, we hope to broaden and strengthen the women’s rights and progressive movements in America today... While it is generally recognized that people have a right to bodily integrity and the right to procreate, women face an array of restrictions on their reproductive decision-making, from restriction on access to abortion services, to restrictions on alternative birthing practices to a wide variety of health and welfare polices that devalue and undermine motherhood for some women, including low income and women of color. Although it is generally accepted that adults can decide what medical treatment they will or will not have - once a woman becomes pregnant others may be able to make that decision for her.

Now that's what I'm talking about. While the NAPW doesn't address issues beyond pregnancy (such as maternity leave and breastfeeding rights), it's still a great agenda. However, they do not specifically bill themselves specifically as a "feminist" or "women's rights" organization. They consider themselves a reproductive and human rights organization.

The National Partnership of Women and Families works toward family-friendly employment policies, such as flexibility in the workplace and paid sick leave. In fact, the National Partnership helped draft the Family Medical Leave Act legislation. Their agenda is great for working mothers, though I would like to see them go even further by adding support for breastfeeding/pumping moms. And in the reproductive health arena, they only scratch the surface, by supporting general ideas of affordability, quality, evidence-based and patient-centered care. It would be good to see

The other problem: Have you ever heard of the National Partnership and/or NAPW? Most people probably have not. They don't have the prominence of (and the political weight that goes along with) larger organizations like NOW and the ACLU. Women (and men too!) need to know about the NAPW and the National Partnership in order to give the organization a broader base of support and more political sway.

To be fair, there is a patchwork of different groups that support specific mothers' rights issues. For example, The MAMA Campaign and The Big Push for Midwives support choices for birthing mothers and pro-midwifery laws. First Right works to end breastfeeding discrimination. Over the past few decades the feminist agenda has not adequately included the rights of mothers. As it stands now, there isn't one umbrella organization to encompass ALL of the personal, political, social, and economic issues mothers face. Maybe some would say it's not necessary, that the other groups, small and large, that have a piece of the "mommy agenda" will be able to get the job done. I wonder, though, if it's an idea whose time has come.

Medicated Moms

Today I read this article about a mother who decided antidepressants were the answer to her parenting stress. Her anecdote about the kids bickering in the backseat of the car is a story all too familiar- Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

But... Since when is getting angry and yelling at your kids a condition requiring medication?

I absolutely believe that there are legitimate uses for antidepressant and antianxiety medications. There are people who wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning without them. But by all indications, use of these medicines has greatly increased. Some would say they are overprescribed- even the author acknowledges it:

"My doctor said he prescribes mood-enhancing medications about 10 times a week... My friend called her doctor to make an appointment and talk about going on Paxil. The nurse said she would just call the script into the pharmacy. No appointment necessary."

No appointment necessary? Are you kidding me? I had to make 3 calls to my doctor, begging her to call in a prescription for antibiotic eyedrops for pinkeye without seeing me first. Why are there doctors handing out powerful psychotropic medications like they are candy?

Here is my biggest problem with the author:

"Maybe moms like me should do more yoga, cut back our responsibilities, see a therapist, exercise more, put duct tape over our mouths every day after 5 p.m. Maybe we should do anything to avoid relying on drugs to become calmer, happier people."

She outright acknowledges that there may have been other (non-pharmacological) ways to handle her stress and anxiety, but did she bother to try them? No, she didn't. It's easier just to pop a pill. Antidepressants have well-documented side effects. As far as I know, yoga and therapy do not.

I reiterate the fact that there are many people for whom antidepressants are nothing short of a godsend. Yet I have to wonder if we, as a society, have come to view any negative emotion as a sign of a mood disorder. Or maybe it's that we think we can use a pill to cure just about anything. Or maybe [conspiratorial whisper] the pharmaceutical companies' marketing tactics have convinced us we are broken and need to be fixed.

"Dodecamom" Doesn't Have Quite The Same Ring To It

Tunisian Woman Poised to Give Birth to 12 Babies: Reports
(Also reported here.)

I guess we'll learn in the coming days if this is a true story or a hoax. Stories of "extreme fertility" really get under my skin. I understand wanting to have children. And I can certainly sympathize with those who are unable to get pregnant or stay pregnant. I know from friends who have suffered fertility problems and miscarriage that it is frustrating, heartbreaking, and overwhelming. But the higher the order of multiples, the higher the risk to both mother and babies. Why take chances with your own life, or the lives of the children you so desperately desire? And where are the medical ethics?

It is a known fact that multiple gestations are at greater risk for premature birth and the potential accompanying health problems. Does bleeding in the brain sound like a great start to life? Even with the availability of selective reduction, there are plenty of folks who object to such practice, and others who would reject it based on the fact that it potentially puts all the fetuses at risk. But let's go back even further, to the fertility doctors who create these high order multiples, because 12 spontaneously conceived babies would be so rare as to be impossible.

Several European countries already limit the number of embryos transferred during IVF. While I believe that the majority of fertility specialists practice ethically, perhaps it is time for the law to step in and keep everyone on the same page. Any thoughts?

Current Thoughts on H1N1 Influenza: "Swine Flu"

I've been following the news about the swine flu since it first started making headlines last spring. The media have repeatedly drawn our attention to the fact that the 1918 flu pandemic began much the same as the current one: With a mild version of the virus in spring and summer. And we all well know, by the fall of 1918, that strain turned suddenly deadly. It's difficult to escape drawing a very frightening parallel to the H1N1 strain making the rounds.

Although the government has been cautious about predicting the impact of swine flu this fall, the FDA is nonetheless putting the H1N1 vaccine on a fast track to approval. The call for the population to immunize may well happen before human clinical trials of the vaccine have been completed. And that, for me, is where things get very scary. Do I want to be in the position of being a guinea pig for a brand new vaccine? Do I want my children to be guinea pigs too?

The other concern I have with the H1N1 vaccine (aside from it being untested) is that it will be the first influenza vaccine to contain an adjuvant. A few other FDA-approved vaccines contain adjuvants, which help boost immune system response and allow less antigen to be included in the vaccine. That means the amount of antigen can be stretched to allow for more doses of the vaccine to be produced. And if you recall the flu vaccine shortage of 2004, this is a potentially fantastic development. But! The adjuvant in Glaxo's swine flu vaccine is not FDA approved, and while some clinical data exist from its use in Europe, it has not been studied here. More alarming: The government has made vaccinating pregnant women a priority, but the vaccine will go untested in pregnant women.

I am not anti-vaccination. I understand that vaccines are one of the most important medical developments of the modern era. My kids are fully vaccinated, with the exception of seasonal flu vaccines, mostly because those vaccines tend not to be highly effective due to strain mismatch. And (knock on wood) my kids have never had the flu despite being in daycare/preschool with dozens of other nose-picking little petri dishes like themselves. To my knowledge, I've only had the flu once, an unconfirmed case in 1999. I spent two days in bed, using copious amounts of NyQuil to maintain a semi-vegetative state until the worst had passed.

At present, H1N1 has not demonstrated itself to be any more virulent than any other strain of seasonal influenza. If the virus does not mutate into something more deadly, I have no plans to take part in what amounts to a mass clinical trial. If people start kicking the bucket left and right, however, I may be persuaded to get the vaccine. Let's not engage in mass hysteria and allow safety to fall by the wayside.