![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ladyspriteSo, in case you haven't seen this hashed over in everyone else's journal, there are new federal guidelines for women's health - guidelines that recommend all women be treated by the health care industry asp re-pregnant, and that women have a responsibility to maintain themselves in peak health just in case they get pregnant at any point. There's a fairly decent summary here -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html?referrer=emailarticle
I've seen a lot of discussion about this in various journals, and I've tried to think about exactly what in these recommendations upsets me, and I've come to a few conclusions.
I'm not upset that officials are recommending that women stay healthy. It makes perfect sense to recommend that women quit smoking, maintain a healthy weight, and take multivitamins. (I do have a problem with their recommendation that all women avoid cat feces at all times, but that's mostly because it shows they have no real understanding of toxoplasmosis.)
I am, however, upset about the suggestion that a woman's health is only important in how it might affect a potential fetus - that health status is nowhere near as important for pre- or post-fertile women. I'm also upset that no similar recommendations are being made for men's health, in spite of the fact that as far as I know, men are still at least tangentially involved in making babies.
Mostly, though, I'm upset at the implication that the United States' abysmal infant mortality rate is in large part due to potential mothers neglecting their health in minute ways, rather than to our lack of widely available health care. Shifting blame like this not only fails to fix the problem, it takes responsibility away from those who *could* fix it, and provides a convenient scapegoat for when the situation fails to improve.
There's also the scary thought that, while there's nothing wrong with suggestions for women's health, it does set unfortunate precedent. I'm not about to start foaming at the mouth about how we're just a name-change and a funny robe away from becoming the Republic of Gilead, but.... how far is it from suggesting that women not smoke for the health of their nonexistent fetus to penalizing them for smoking, or making it illegal. And the recommendations also include the suggestion that all potentially fertile women avoid "workplace hazards." The tiny paranoid corner of my brain reserved for conspiracy theory can't help but wonder whether this may eventually lead to workplaces being even less willing to hire women for some jobs, or banning women from some jobs.
Most of all, though, I'm mad at how this has managed to conveniently combine tidbits of good medical advice with incredibly offensive logic, in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't manner. Women who hate the message and strike out against it wind up refusing suggestions that actually are good for them, pregnant or not; and women who embrace the recommendations unfortunately wind up tacitly cooperating with rhetoric that, intentionally or not, encourages their objectification. It's a lose-lose situation.
Good job, government.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html?referrer=emailarticle
I've seen a lot of discussion about this in various journals, and I've tried to think about exactly what in these recommendations upsets me, and I've come to a few conclusions.
I'm not upset that officials are recommending that women stay healthy. It makes perfect sense to recommend that women quit smoking, maintain a healthy weight, and take multivitamins. (I do have a problem with their recommendation that all women avoid cat feces at all times, but that's mostly because it shows they have no real understanding of toxoplasmosis.)
I am, however, upset about the suggestion that a woman's health is only important in how it might affect a potential fetus - that health status is nowhere near as important for pre- or post-fertile women. I'm also upset that no similar recommendations are being made for men's health, in spite of the fact that as far as I know, men are still at least tangentially involved in making babies.
Mostly, though, I'm upset at the implication that the United States' abysmal infant mortality rate is in large part due to potential mothers neglecting their health in minute ways, rather than to our lack of widely available health care. Shifting blame like this not only fails to fix the problem, it takes responsibility away from those who *could* fix it, and provides a convenient scapegoat for when the situation fails to improve.
There's also the scary thought that, while there's nothing wrong with suggestions for women's health, it does set unfortunate precedent. I'm not about to start foaming at the mouth about how we're just a name-change and a funny robe away from becoming the Republic of Gilead, but.... how far is it from suggesting that women not smoke for the health of their nonexistent fetus to penalizing them for smoking, or making it illegal. And the recommendations also include the suggestion that all potentially fertile women avoid "workplace hazards." The tiny paranoid corner of my brain reserved for conspiracy theory can't help but wonder whether this may eventually lead to workplaces being even less willing to hire women for some jobs, or banning women from some jobs.
Most of all, though, I'm mad at how this has managed to conveniently combine tidbits of good medical advice with incredibly offensive logic, in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't manner. Women who hate the message and strike out against it wind up refusing suggestions that actually are good for them, pregnant or not; and women who embrace the recommendations unfortunately wind up tacitly cooperating with rhetoric that, intentionally or not, encourages their objectification. It's a lose-lose situation.
Good job, government.
