In the midst of life ...

I should say at the outset that this pregnancy-related post is quite a solemn one (don’t worry, I’m fine!), and even though it is firmly grounded in my own experience may act as a trigger for some readers. 

* * * * *

This is a tale of two pregnancies.

During my first pregnancy, I began to bleed at seven weeks. As I’m sure you can imagine it was a startling and unexpected sight. Given that I was still in my first trimester, I worried that I might be about to miscarry and quickly made an appointment with the nearest GP that I could find. After a check-up, he seemed fairly relaxed that my fears were not about to be realised, but sent me for a scan just to be on the safe side. I felt calmer, but was eager to see what was going on in my otherwise-much-as-usual abdomen.

I don’t think that I really expected to see much at this scan. After all, the scans where you can discern faces and legs and hands come later, at 12 and then 20 weeks. I guess I thought the radiologist would have a quick look and reassure me that everything was just fine (well, fingers crossed anyway).

After consuming practically my own body weight in water in the hour before my appointment, I propped myself up on the bed and gel was smeared across my tummy. Using my inflated bladder as a guide, the radiologist soon found what he was looking for. There, magnified several times, was a small shadowy circle: that, he said, is the remainder of the egg sac, the proof we sought that my pregnancy was still viable. Phew!

But there was something else there too. Something I had not expected to see.

It was like a tiny flickering light, a candle buffeted by a draft. 

As we looked at it, the radiologist turned on the sound. Clear, regular thuds turned the flickering candle into a sure sign of life: a heartbeat. Along the bottom of the screen, we could see the jagged lines graphically representing that heartbeat. This fetal heartbeat, much faster than ours, pushed the lines close together, into steep, high peaks, and deep, narrow valleys.

I watched, speechless, unexpectedly moved by this testament to a life that was still going strong, despite what I feared. Whatever the reason for my bleeding, it was clear that the foetus and I were still in this together.

Afterwards, I couldn’t stop thinking about this moment. It got me thinking about, of all things given my very recent fears, abortion. I was and am firmly pro-choice, believing that it is a woman’s right to control her own fertility. But my experience at the seven-week scan had given me a different perspective. I didn’t agree with pro-life advocates, but I could understand better where they were coming from. It was hard to deny the life-force of that tiny but steady beating heart, that palpable assurance that ‘yes, I’m still here.’

It reminded me of the anti-abortion sign parked by the side of the road of State Highway 2, which infuriated me every time I drove past it: ‘abortion stops a beating heart.’ Designed to guilt-trip, it now seemed like they might have a point.

I’m not the only expectant pro-choice mother who has been given pause by an early scan. In Misconceptions, Naomi Wolf wrote of her reaction to her three-month scan:

As I saw that hand and foot, something irrational happened: a lifetime’s orientation toward maternal rights over fetal rights lurched out of kilter. Some voice from the most primitive core of my brain - the voice of the species? - said: You must protect that little hand at all costs; no harm can come to it or its owner. That little hand, that small human signature, is more important now than you are. The message was unambivalent. (Misconceptions, chapter 5)

While I did not share many of Wolf’s sentiments - ‘voice of the species?’, ‘more important now than you are’? Jeez, Naomi! - I related to her altered perception. And how it led her to question her basic notions of identity and politics. She comments further:

I was still passionately pro-choice. But I was beginning to wonder if a pregnant woman was an implicit challenge to the autonomous ‘individual’ upon which basic Western notions of law, of rights, even of selfhood were based. There are two people inside me now, I thought. Everything is different. Pregnancy, it seemed required a different kind of philosophy; even a better pro-choice language. (Misconceptions, chapter 5, extracted here)

In a previous article in New Republic, Wolf opined that the pro-choice movement had "developed a lexicon of dehumanization" and urged feminists to accept abortion as a form of homicide and defend the procedure within the ambiguity of this moral conundrum. She continues, "Abortion should be legal; it is sometimes even necessary. Sometimes the mother must be able to decide that the fetus, in its full humanity, must die."  Wolf concluded by speculating that in a world of "real gender equality," passionate feminists "might well hold candlelight vigils at abortion clinics, standing shoulder to shoulder with the doctors who work there, commemorating and saying goodbye to the dead."

I don’t think she’s on the right track here, but Wolf does have a point. Trans-historically, cross-culturally, and among other animal species, reproductive control - whether through abortion or, more troublingly, infanticide - is the dark other side of the story of women’s ability to bring forth life. 

My own reflections on this topic didn’t end with my first pregnancy, however.

In this, my second pregnancy, I also had a seven-week scan. This one was simply ordered as a ‘dating scan’ to establish an estimated due date, rather than to confirm the viability of the pregnancy. Again, I sloshed into the radiologist’s room, had the gel put on my tummy, and looked expectantly at the monitor. This time my fear was not that I might have lost the baby, but that there might be more than one heartbeat in there. 

Again, we saw the shadowy egg-sac - just the one, thank goodness - appear on the screen. Again, we saw the candle-flame flickering. Again, we saw the jagged heart-rate and heard the quick rhythmical beat. 

This time, however, my emotional response to the scan was quite different. 

This time, I was more matter-of-fact, less surprised: ‘There it is’, I thought to myself, as if I had just found a lost set of car-keys. I watched the monitor and was only surprised by the fact that I was not really surprised.  What had changed since my previous first scan and this one?

In a word, experience.

While I still remembered my sense of wonder from the first scan, I was also somewhat older and wiser about what it takes to bear and raise a child. I remembered feeling sick as a dog during my previous first trimester. I remembered nearly dying after giving birth, and the long process of recovery from that. I remembered the sleep deprivation, near-constant breast-feeding, isolation, and marginalisation that counter-balanced the marvel of a new baby and the joy of her every movement. I remembered that there are emotional, financial and social costs in having a baby, just as there are incalculable gains. 

More importantly, I knew that I had wanted my first baby and I wanted this one. But I also knew that not every woman who finds herself pregnant does (for whatever reason that may be). I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with pregnant Guardian columnist Tanya Gold, who recently wrote: “Pregnancy has made me more pro-choice, not less; an unwanted pregnancy, I now know for certain, is too much to ask, here or anywhere.”  Similarly, journalist Caitlin Moran powerfully narrates her own experience of abortion, after already suffering a miscarriage and giving birth to two children, in How to Be A Woman. Her conclusion? That women know best about what’s best for them.

But, as my reaction to my first scan attests, this is a complex area.  

While I remain pro-choice, I cannot un-remember the flickering light of life I first saw approximately three years ago. Nor can I ignore the fact that, for some groups of women, the right to have children is threatened by things I am extremely unlikely to experience, such as forced sterilisation (see examples here and here). Nor that some groups of women are stereotyped as ‘bludging breeders’ and are on the receiving end of social censure for having or wanting to have children. But in every circumstance, when it comes to fertility, women are often positioned as less than human, their right to control their own fertility - be it having children or deciding not to have them - is seen as a matter for others to determine. 

Knowing now what I was yet to learn then, I am more convinced than ever that it is the state’s responsibility to provide women with access to legal and safe abortion, not only in cases of rape, incest, threat to the mother’s life, or for medical reasons, but also in cases where a potential mother does not want to carry a child to term for whatever reason that may be. Anything less would be, ironically, to infantilise women, to treat them as if the state - and, by that, let’s face it, I really mean patriarchal ideology - knew better than women themselves about what is best for them.

This is not an abstract or settled issue, either. 

Just this week, Texas senator Wendy Davis filibustered for 11 hours to stall proposed legislation that would have limited Texan women’s right to exercise control over their own fertility. The proposals she took a stand against called for abortions to be banned after 20 weeks, clinics to upgrade their facilities to be classed as surgical centres and doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. They would have forced 37 of the state's 42 clinics to close, making it very difficult for women in rural areas to obtain an abortion if they needed one. 

Since her actions, and those of her supporters, succeeded in over-turning the vote, Davis has been attacked by male politicians for being a teenage mother of a teenage mother, someone who should know better than anyone what the value of a life is. 

Given that Davis was a divorced single mother, working two jobs to support her family, and living in a trailer park by the age of 19, I think she, far better than her male critics, probably does know what the value of a life is and what it takes to make and raise one. She did not choose to end her own pregnancy, but she knows enough to know that not all women would make the same choice she did.

review: Wonder Woman

Unfortunately, this is not a review of the comic, film or TV series of Wonder Woman, the feminist super-hero, but a review of Australian journalist Virginia Haussegger’s 2005 book Wonder Woman: The myth of ‘having it all’.  

Its starting point is a provocative and visceral article entitled 'The Sins of our Feminist Mothers' Haussegger wrote for The Age in 2002. In it, she bared her soul about the recent and devastating discovery in her late 30s that she was not able to have children. Her article went further, questioning whether feminism has sold women a myth: that despite its important gains, it had made women like her believe that they could ‘have it all,’ when in fact they might really have to choose between career success or children.

This book grew out of the huge reaction, both positive and negative, to that article: 

That sense of being sold ‘a crock’ was a common theme in the outpourings. What fascinated me about many of these letters, emails and commentaries was that it seemed no matter where a woman stood, be she mother, mother-to-be or non-mother, something was wrong. It was as if a scabby old scar had been ripped off a festering wound. (p 25)

Haussegger clearly intends her book to be a Betty Friedan-esque expose of a kind of modern-day ‘problem with no name’ (p 289). She tries to connect her own experience with that of the women who responded to her article - both the mothers who felt short-changed by the experience of motherhood (whether finding out having kids was not all it was cracked up to be or missing out on career opportunities) and the women who did not have children (whether the ‘child-free' women who adamantly insisted on their right not to breed, or women who did not have children for one reason or another).

On the positive side, the personal stories that Haussegger recounts in the book are incredibly moving, and her ability to connect with the women telling them is certainly part of that. Reading about Carolyn, a woman who struggled with numerous fertility treatments for well over a decade was almost unbearable, and left me hoping her story had a happy ending. It did. In her early 40s, Carolyn eventually gave birth to a much-wanted son. Other women who struggled with fertility, and whose stories feature in the same chapter, were not so fortunate.  

What is clear from the stories Haussegger tells is that women occupy a spectrum when it comes to their reproductive capabilities: from the extremes of the militant child-free women who voluntarily sterilised themselves to women who know from a young age that being a mother is a core part of their identity and thrive on having large families. Whatever position women occupy on this spectrum, both their humanity and their rights are not solely defined by their biology. It’s not simply a question of mother versus non-mother, and it’s  shame that Haussegger presents it that way.

What lets this book down, then, is its attempts to connect the stories together into a political analysis. Haussegger makes clear that she’s read several key feminist works, yet she somehow manages to lay ‘the blame’ for all women’s dissatisfactions with their lives at its door. It’s quite astounding that terms like ‘patriarchy’ (or a similar structural term) or even ‘power’ barely rate a mention in the book. Even the notion of assigning blame to someone or something for what, at least in Haussegger's own case, sounds like a particularly cruel twist of fate, seems to stop at the level of the individual and her ‘choices’ (or 'non-choices'). 

Several of the chapters in the book see either the women she quotes or Haussegger herself blaming ‘other’ women for their problems. A particularly egregious example is provided by one of the child-free women who, in the course of asserting the validity of her own life-choice (fine), took a swipe at all people who care for children on more than a casual basis by saying that all they do is ‘sit around all day’ (and paid parental leave is an 'unfair advantage' that involves 'getting paid to sit around all day' p 239)! Frankly, this is both offensive and wrong, and not exactly a great basis for solidarity around respecting all the subject positions that women occupy. 

Rather, the heart of the issue is that a patriarchal system primarily defines all women by their biology - how they look, how sexually available they may or may not be, whether or not they have children - regardless of whatever else they have to offer. That will manifest in different ways depending on what other subject positions an individual woman occupies: some women will be derided for being successful in traditionally male roles and not having children (just this week, yet another extremely offensive and sexist attack on Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard proves this point), while others will be seen as ‘doing nothing all day’, as well as losing out on any number of economic benefits, because they are stay-at-home mothers. Blaming each other or an abstract spectre called ‘feminism’ for this only serves to leave dominant structures of power intact.

Commentator Leslie Cannold is spot on about the central problem of this book:

While Haussegger is a wonderful raconteur, and demonstrates a clear gift for exploring emotions - her own and, through interview, those of others - she desperately lacks any capacity to think her way out of the complex problems she explores in Wonder Woman.  

Despite having read most seminal and popular feminist texts ... she clearly failed to absorb their central and most important message: that the personal is political. Without this understanding, or some structural framework to make sense of her experience and those of other women in terms other than those proffered by liberal individualism, Haussegger lacks the tools to extricate herself from the circular path of self-blame and DIY solutions that have characterised her journey, and to cut a clear path forward for her female readers. (Cannold, The Age)

And it got me thinking about the way she defined the problem too. 

‘Having it all’ seems a popular fantasy of the new millennium. In 2012, Anne-Marie Slaughter provocatively opined in The Atlantic that, for women ‘of her demographic’ - ones who have reaped all the apparent advantages from the feminist revolution - ‘having it all’ (i.e. successful career and family) was still not a realistic possibility and young women were being done a disservice to be told that it was.

While elements of both Slaughter’s article and Hausseger’s book resonated with me, I was principally left wondering about this mythical notion of ‘having it all’. This seems like a distortion of feminism to me. ‘Having it all’ sounds much more like the acquisitive language of capitalism - particularly when it is mentioned in the same breath as ‘choices’ - rather than the language of feminism - which has drawn on revolutionary language like ‘emancipation’ and ‘liberation’ or rights-based language such as ‘equality’ (ideally, of the substantive rather than the merely formal kind), or ‘the right to choose’ (i.e. the right to self-determination and bodily autonomy when it comes to reproduction). It also implies that all men ‘have it all’, which is clearly far from the case. 

I’m not the only one perplexed about the ‘having it all’ fantasy. Commentator Tressie McMillan Cottom says that Slaughter’s article left her cold because she did not relate to its concerns, whether from the subject position of her race or class, or ideological orientation: 

The article seemed to not only take for granted that all women have been told that they should have it all but that all women have–if not intimate–then definitely not adversarial relationships with power .... More often than not, power has worked to undermine my reality and my existence. And I don’t mean that in some fuzzy theoretical sense. I mean that when power, for example, starts talking about reforming welfare it is usually meant to be an act made on people who look like me; people with whom I identify even if I do not share their economic status. (Cottom, The Atlantic)

I too was somewhat bothered by both Slaughter and Hausseger’s analysis which speaks mostly to women in elite positions of power. This is not to downgrade the many challenges that women have faced to access those positions and crack the glass ceiling. Rather it is to note that most working women - and men, for that matter - are not CEOs or star journalists or politicians - they’re people making ends meet or, where they have some choice in the matter, trying to engage in work that matters to them (which may not be of the most well-remunerated kind). An analysis that fails to take account of this - and other realities, as Cottom attest - can only ever be partial and limited.

Unfortunately, especially given her public profile in Australia, Haussegger's book falls into this category.

On 'baby brain'

I am now well into my second trimester. The morning sickness is, thankfully, a distant memory, and the lack of manouvreability and difficulty sleeping is still to come. Most of the time, except when I’m trying to get somewhere in a hurry, I feel pretty normal. 

So normal, in fact, that I sometimes even forget I’m pregnant.

And, when I catch myself forgetting, I start feeling guilty. Guilty, already, that I’m not paying enough attention to this baby, that it might somehow be second-best to the active toddler who came first.  

At the moment, I can still lift said toddler. Indeed, my manageable bump offers a convenient ledge of support on which to balance her with one arm while I open the car door or hoist up the nappy bag. My back is starting to groan a little more with each of these lifts, but I figure I’ve got a good month to go before all I’ll have to rely on to persuade her to do something she doesn’t want to do is my own brilliant logic and winning smiles.

Guilt is a pre-requisite for Maternity 101. And it can start even before the baby is born, as this helpful website points out. I’ve previously blogged about the guilt induced by nutritional choices, but, it seems, I’m not the only one who feels guilty second time round at forgetting my pregnancy - and, whisper it, maybe even feeling glad that I’ve forgotten. I feel guilty because I’m wondering if it’s wishful thinking: do I really wish I wasn’t going to have another baby? Especially having had first-hand experience of what it was like first time round?

Forgetfulness in general is another symptom of pregnancy. Last time round, I came into work specially on a day off to attend an important meeting, then promptly got so caught up in something else that I totally forgot about the meeting until it was over. Lots of ‘baby brain!’ jibes came my way that day, let me tell you. Again, like last time, I’m finding some of my short-term memory skills affected: absent-mindedness, difficulty remembering all the things I need to do unless I write a list, and basic numeracy (since my first pregnancy, I’ve had to quite consciously make myself remember my own phone number or PIN number each time I need to use them).  I hasten to add that the remainder of my mental faculties are unaffected. I am not alone in this regard, either.   

Some psychologists have found that ‘baby brain’ is based in reality. And, inevitably, you’ll find someone postulating an evolutionary reason why ‘baby brain’ might be a useful adaptation for expectant mothers: one women’s health expert says, "It has been postulated that, from an evolutionary standpoint, this memory impairment may be helpful so that women will forget about other stuff and focus on caring for the child."

Others are more skeptical, putting it down to factors commonly associated with pregnancy: changes to diet and routine, surging hormones, and disrupted sleep being particular culprits. Whatever the cause of ‘baby brain’, however, most researchers are convinced that it doesn’t alter the brain’s actual capacity.  This Australian study was also careful to point out that the minor cognitive impairment or ‘baby brain’ experienced by up to 80 per cent of the women in the study did not justify discrimination on the part of employers. The warning is apt, as other studies have shown that pregnant women can face significant prejudice especially at work.

Interestingly - although ethically much more problematic - comparable animal studies have shown the opposite results: rats and other lab animals have shown evidence of cognitive enhancement during pregnancy. Indeed, more recent - and nuanced - research has shown evidence of cognitive enhancement in pregnant women in other areas, such as increased sensitivity to danger (as I’ve blogged about previously) and increased response to the cues of a newborn baby.

Psychologist Christian Jarrett sums up the shifts in thinking about ‘baby brain’:

the idea that it’s a purely negative effect is a myth that's in the process of being debunked. Any pregnancy-related impairments are likely a side-effect of what ultimately is a maternal neuro-upgrade that boosts women's ability to care for their vulnerable off-spring. Many will welcome the demise of the pregnesia myth, because it's a simplistic, one-sided concept that almost certainly encourages prejudice against women. 

All of which is well and good - boo, down with pregnancy prejudice - but what happens when what you’re forgetting is the fact that you’re pregnant?  How does that help prepare for the baby?

Not least when it comes to remembering the things you’re supposed to do to help them grow. This time round, in a new development since I was last pregnant, I have been prescribed iodine pills, one to be taken every day throughout the pregnancy, and then throughout breastfeeding after the baby is born. The reason is to make sure that the foetus gets enough iodine, as it ‘makes the thyroid hormones which are essential for brain development and function and for the normal growth and development of children.’

The only trouble is I’ve been finding it hard to remember whether or not I’ve taken one of the the blasted things every day.

Forgetting to take my iodine supplements, forgetting I’m even pregnant. Whatever next?

Forgetting that ‘motherhood’ is a culturally-loaded institution that damns women if they breed and if they don’t, if they work and if they don’t, if they eat well and if they don’t, if they raise their children ‘right’ or if they don’t?

Unlikely.

Maybe that’s what’s driving my second-trimester absent-mindedness: the fear of upending the delicate balance that I’ve managed to cultivate between my various roles since our first child was born and our world turned upside down.