3 ms·

The best part of this article comes in a paragraph buried in the middle: > Pregnancy decisions are complex decisions, and we live in an increasingly fast-paced

The best part of this article comes in a paragraph buried in the middle: > Pregnancy decisions are complex decisions, and we live in an increasingly fast-paced society. Little wonder, then, that most women opt to err on the side of caution and adhere to the culture of restriction they find themselves in while pregnant. I, myself, with a background in quantitative research design and now a professor whose research focuses on the social construction of fact and risk, remember scowling each day when I microwaved my deli meat. I was frustrated that I was succumbing to acting on what I knew was a minute risk of listeria in the meat, but I knew I’d never forgive myself if something happened to my baby because I was too self-centered to microwave my bologna (which, to be clear, is disgusting). I felt overly equipped with my unique educational background — pairing critical analysis of study design and risk aversion in modern society — to think for myself about these issues. And yet here I was, microwaving meat anyway, because I had 15 minutes to get to work, I had to eat something, and I was tired from another uncomfortable night’s sleep while very pregnant. It was easiest to microwave the damn bologna. I think women like the author, who are frustrated by how their lives are constricted by pregnancy, should own the very large degree to which they are doing this to themselves. If they want to change it, they need to start with what's going on in their own heads. The extreme risk aversion some mothers exhibit, and the way it constricts their lives, emphatically does not end at birth, and after birth it begins to constrict the child's freedom as well.

jemmyw 4y ago
I was going to write an agreeing comment but I've changed my mind. My wife avoided soft cheese during pregnancy for the listeria risk. I've looked at the numbers for where we live and it seems there's no real evidence of risk at all: the % of cases over 20 years has remained stable despite food safety messaging. However, my wife yakked up pretty much everything during pregnancy. She had such awful morning sickness that she couldn't really operate properly. So 9 months of constricted eating isn't a big deal on top of that. Risk aversion with your kids is just a natural reaction. Some take it further than others. I would say we've taken it too far as a society but maybe we've just focused on the wrong risks, ie we kept them indoors and then social media made them sad.
m000 4y ago
> I think women like the author, who are frustrated by how their lives are constricted by pregnancy, should own the very large degree to which they are doing this to themselves. If they want to change it, they need to start with what's going on in their own heads. > The extreme risk aversion some mothers exhibit, and the way it constricts their lives, emphatically does not end at birth, and after birth it begins to constrict the child's freedom as well. The argument being made is that risk aversion didn't develop on its own. Women have been bombarded for decades with guilt/panic inducing guidelines, based on studies which often don't/can't go deeper than corellation of data. A whole industry profits from the situation. Yet, you propose as a "solution" that individual pregnant women should personally stand against these imposed norms, ignore the scoff of their social circle and society, and risk living their life with guilt if things turn the wrong way? This is borderline victim blaming.
- civilized 4y ago
  Yes, I am proposing precisely that. I understand how it might look like victim blaming, but this is not about blame. It's about agency. There will never be a culture without pressures. But everyone has the power to choose to resist those pressures. I think this is one big way that culture changes. Articles like this can also be part of it. Consider the microwaving. I don't think there is any predatory business or institution pushing that? Wouldn't that especially suggest a bigger role for agency? Could we consider the cognitive biases that make us more receptive to flawed cultural messages, and how we can overcome them? Or is it perhaps possible that the dominant culture messages could be good in the eyes of the people sending those messages, but not good for every individual person that receives those messages?
- tgv 4y ago
  > Women have been bombarded for decades with guilt/panic inducing guidelines, .... A whole industry profits from the situation. First: you suggest a relation between the two, but does that exist? Second: who are these bombarders? What industry profits? Third: should we just ignore all correlations? Or just those that relate to reproductive rights for women, because that's a hot topic (in the US)?

jemmyw 4y ago

I was going to write an agreeing comment but I've changed my mind. My wife avoided soft cheese during pregnancy for the listeria risk. I've looked at the numbers for where we live and it seems there's no real evidence of risk at all: the % of cases over 20 years has remained stable despite food safety messaging. However, my wife yakked up pretty much everything during pregnancy. She had such awful morning sickness that she couldn't really operate properly. So 9 months of constricted eating isn't a big deal on top of that. Risk aversion with your kids is just a natural reaction. Some take it further than others. I would say we've taken it too far as a society but maybe we've just focused on the wrong risks, ie we kept them indoors and then social media made them sad.

m000 4y ago

> I think women like the author, who are frustrated by how their lives are constricted by pregnancy, should own the very large degree to which they are doing this to themselves. If they want to change it, they need to start with what's going on in their own heads. > The extreme risk aversion some mothers exhibit, and the way it constricts their lives, emphatically does not end at birth, and after birth it begins to constrict the child's freedom as well. The argument being made is that risk aversion didn't develop on its own. Women have been bombarded for decades with guilt/panic inducing guidelines, based on studies which often don't/can't go deeper than corellation of data. A whole industry profits from the situation. Yet, you propose as a "solution" that individual pregnant women should personally stand against these imposed norms, ignore the scoff of their social circle and society, and risk living their life with guilt if things turn the wrong way? This is borderline victim blaming.

civilized 4y ago
Yes, I am proposing precisely that. I understand how it might look like victim blaming, but this is not about blame. It's about agency. There will never be a culture without pressures. But everyone has the power to choose to resist those pressures. I think this is one big way that culture changes. Articles like this can also be part of it. Consider the microwaving. I don't think there is any predatory business or institution pushing that? Wouldn't that especially suggest a bigger role for agency? Could we consider the cognitive biases that make us more receptive to flawed cultural messages, and how we can overcome them? Or is it perhaps possible that the dominant culture messages could be good in the eyes of the people sending those messages, but not good for every individual person that receives those messages?
tgv 4y ago
> Women have been bombarded for decades with guilt/panic inducing guidelines, .... A whole industry profits from the situation. First: you suggest a relation between the two, but does that exist? Second: who are these bombarders? What industry profits? Third: should we just ignore all correlations? Or just those that relate to reproductive rights for women, because that's a hot topic (in the US)?