The lies we tell to get by

I have a boyfriend (please leave me alone)

Yes I am totally mentally distraught about this pregnancy and would get lots worse if I had to continue (please give me an abortion)

No extra flatmates (please give me enough resources to support my whanau)

It's not you, it's me (please let me go)

I'm driving tonight (please don't spike my drink)

Maybe, I'm not sure, but perhaps we could do it this way? (please listen to my excellent idea)

No I don't mind you asking me if I'm having more kids, it's okay (please don't get angry with me)

Sure I can work late (please see my worth)

Oh yes, baby is a great sleeper (please think I'm a good parent)

Thanks, you look great too (please stop talking about my appearance)

---

We live in a society where women often need to lie to get by.  Honesty is often the preserve of those who have a high level of safety and comfort.  May we live in a world where we don't need to lie to get by.  We don't live there yet.

The problem is low pay, not family size

In recent public debate about child poverty blame has been laid once again on parents having too many children.  Correspondents and opinion piece writers have stated or implied that more than two children is too many.  When did we decide that having three kids constitutes a large family? 

In the whole of human history there has been a massive period of time with average family sizes of more than three children born to one couple.  In many countries in the world now women are likely to have more than two children over the course of their fertile years, indeed the world average fertility rate is a bit over 2.5 on all three measures Wikipedia uses.  is it unreasonable to expect to be able to have three children and be able to get by in Aotearoa New Zealand, a comparatively well-off place to live?

Those who blame family size for child poverty have been rebutted on the statistics already by such as the Child Poverty Action Group, who have as their mandate research and advocacy to reduce child poverty and would I have no doubt promote reductions in family sizes if that really were a key driver. 

What the family size argument seems to boil down to is pretending that you know more about someone else’s life than they know about it themselves.  Second guessing the life choices of others is an impossible game, even with the benefit of hindsight.

There could be many reasons why people have more than two children (or indeed any children, one child, or no children).  Maybe there was a contraceptive failure, or cultural pressure to have a big family, or a desire to have children of different sexes, or they had the financial resources at the time of conception, or any range of other reasons that are theirs and not yours or mine.

By stating bluntly “if you can’t feed then don’t breed” a series of unhelpful assumptions are made, including that people’s financial situations don’t change over time, or at least don’t get worse.  In an age of uncertainty around employment, the future of work, rapidly changing technology and industries, this seems a naïve assumption to make. In decades gone by how many people, young women in particular, took typing at school before we saw the rise of the personal computer and the demise of the typing pool? 

It is equally impossible for a couple or an individual to accurately foresee how much each child will add to their outgoings.  Will this child have additional health needs, a disability, or be one of twins?  Will we have to move to different housing because of particular needs this child has, housing that is more expensive and creates more transport expenses too? 

Finally not all children are planned at the point of conception.  Contraception does fail, and is not easily available and socially acceptable to all.  In New Zealand Abortions are legally allowed only for medical risk to the physical or mental health of the pregnant person, not for economic reasons.   Those advocating for the termination of pregnancies which are going to put financial pressure on a parent, based on projected income, should think carefully, not least because an abortion on such grounds would be against the current law.

The key driver of child poverty is not too many children but too little money; low incomes, whether it be from paid employment or social welfare or a combination of both.

It's not that long ago that most people in this country could expect a reasonable standard of living for their family based on the income of one full time worker, even with three or more children in the household.  In 2012 the Herald published statistics on median income levels across Auckland.  The area I live in and represent, Puketapapa (Mt Roskill), had the 18th lowest median income in the Herald's stats, despite having a lower percentage of people on benefits (10.5%) than many of the suburbs higher up.   This gap is not about the choices of individuals, it is about a system that distributes wealth in a way that is wrong.  We simply must lift incomes.  We do that by investing in education, in infrastructure, in social welfare, in job creation, in innovation, in pay equity and, crucially, paying at least a living wage.  Focusing on procreation is a distraction, not a solution.

NB:  This post is a rewrite and update of an earlier one I wrote about four years ago on the same topic.  I submitted it to the Herald but they declined to publish it.  Special thanks to Deborah Russell for editing.

Guest Post: Abortion & maternal mental health report

Many thanks to Family Planning NZ for allowing me to publish the below from their e-newsletter:

A report released in December 2011 by the United Kingdom National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health was commissioned to review the best available evidence on any association between induced abortion and mental health outcomes, and draw conclusions where possible.  The report concluded that, on the best evidence available: 

• The rates of mental health problems for women with an unwanted pregnancy were the same whether they had an abortion or gave birth.
• An unwanted pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of mental health problems.
• The most reliable predictor of post-abortion mental health problems for women was having a history of mental health problems before the abortion. 
• The factors associated with increased rates of mental health problems for women in the general population and following abortion were similar. 
• There were some additional factors associated with an increased risk of mental health problems specifically related to abortion, such as pressure from a partner to have an abortion and negative attitudes towards abortions in general and towards a woman’s personal experience of the abortion. 

Here's a link to the full PDF of the report.

A response to the Can't Feed Don't Breed Brigade

On Monday the NZ Herald started a week-long series looking at the gap between rich and poor in Auckland.  On the first day they examined two families - one well-off and one struggling.  The first had two kids, 10 and 13, the second three children, all aged 3 and under.

The article was widely shared online by leftie progressive types I follow and I was startled by some of the responses, particularly on the issue of the struggling family including three children.

Comments such as these were made:

"Agree though that life is all about choices and looking at the big picture of deciding to have 3 kids (and another from a prior relationship) to support when not in a strong enough financial position points to perhaps the wrong choices being made along the way."

"I agree that an average worker should expect to be able to support a family on average pay, but three or more kids I think is pushing it. You shouldn't enter into a situation you can't afford to maintain, that's irresponsible in my view."

When did we decide that having three kids constitutes a large family?

In the whole of human history there has been a massive period of time with average family sizes of more than 3 children born to one couple.  In many countries in the world now women are likely to have more than two children over the course of their fertile years, indeed the world average fertility rate is a bit over 2.5 on all three measures Wikipedia lists.   Why is it unreasonable to expect to be able to have three children and be able to get by in Aotearoa New Zealand, a comparatively well-off place to live?

What also bugs me is how, like with so many issues that come up through a feminist prism, this is about pretending that you know more about someone else's life than they know about it themselves.  Second guessing the life choices of others is a game I'd rather not play.  There could be many reasons why people have 2< children (or indeed any children, one child, no children).  Maybe there was a contraceptive failure, or cultural pressure to have a big family, or a desire to have children of different sexes, or they had the financial resources at the time of conception, or any range of other reasons that are theirs and not yours, or mine.

And what's are the assumptions made by those saying the equivalent of "you shouldn't breed more mouths than you can feed"?  

• People's financial situations don't change over time - or at least they don't get worse.
• Someone can totally foresee how much more each child will add to their outgoings.
• Contraception is fool-proof and freely available and widely used and not socially, religiously or culturally discouraged for anyone.
• Abortion for economic reasons is legal and accessible.

None of these is an accurate assumption.  Taken together they in fact look quite ludicrous, and the last one in particular I find quite chilling.  Those advocating for the termination of pregnancies which are going to put financial pressure on a parent, based on projected income, well, there's a name for that.  

And if you don't take it that far, if you merely encourage people who are on tight incomes to end pregnancies, then you are actually asking them to break to law, because, as we frequently discuss on this blog, an abortion for reasons other than the physical or mental health of the pregnant person is illegal in this country.  While personally I'll be working to change that law, it isn't likely that abortions on economic grounds will be allowable in the near future.

So if the "Can't Feed Don't Breed" brigade don't want to force poor people to have abortions, or even encourage them to break the law, then what's the next thing?  Use contraception?  Not 100% effective, so no guarantee of children resulting to impoverish their siblings and parents.  Oh wait I know, don't have consensual heterosexual sex!  At least not during the fertile years - so that's never for men and not until post-menopause for women.  This would certainly be good for that Homosexual Recruitment Drive we've all heard so much about.  

Let's not lose sight of the original point of discussion that the Herald article was about - the widening income disparity in Auckland.  How about we actually look at the real problem, rather than getting distracted.  The issue here is not too many children but too little money; low incomes, whether it be from paid employment or social welfare or a combination of both.

It's not that long ago that most people in this country could expect a reasonable standard of living for their family based on the income of one full time worker, even with three or more children in the household.  The area I represent at Auckland Council, Puketapapa, had the 18th lowest median income in the Herald's stats, despite having a lower percentage of people on benefits (10.5%) than many of the suburbs higher up.  I live here, in one of the poorer suburbs, and I work all over this part of town.  This gap is not about the choices of individuals, it is about a system that distributes wealth in a way that is all wrong.  We simply must lift incomes.  And we do that not by bagging people for having kids but by investing in education, in infrastructure, in social welfare, in job creation, in innovation, in pay equity and, in the public sector, in actual pay to public servants of all hues.  Focusing on procreation is a distraction, not a solution.

Flexibility

An old moan: women with small children end up taking all the flexible working hours (because there's a limited amount to go round?) and when they are absent or work shorted hours their workload is dumped on non-parents. I'm sure this happens - though I'm disturbed by how often it's used as another excuse to bash parents (usually mothers) in paid work, rather than an issue with the organisation and structure of the workplace.

But my experience has been just the opposite. Particularly in my current workplace, I've found working with people who have small children leads to an understanding that (a) there are other things in our life that need attention and (b) the measure of good performance at work is not clocking in at 8:30am and out at 5pm. Have I covered for people because of childcare related needs? Sure. But I've also been granted flexibility and/or had people cover for me when studying, or when I was house buying and needed to pick up documents and once when I came in two hours late because I couldn't find my shoes.

Of course my experience isn't universal - it's not even universal in the history of my own employment (I've worked in call centres. Yeah.) but I want to get experiences like this out there not so much to counter what people are claiming to be the case, but to show what can be the case, and in doing so focus on what the problem is and isn't. And it isn't people (and we know that usually means women) having kids.

Guest Post: Dealing with Infertility: a How to Guide for friends and family

Many thanks to Foggy in Nelson for this contribution, on the eve of Mothers' Day.  Wanting to write this has driven FiN to set up her own eponymous blog, (the below is crossposted) which I'll be adding to the blogroll shortly. 

 

I’ve thought long and hard about whether to pen this post but after 12 hours of feeling churned up about the issue I have decided that getting it all out on paper (the laptop version) will help with the processing of my feelings, and maybe serve as an educational and useful tool for a few people out there.

 

Fertility, or lack of it, is an awkward issue. It can destroy friendships, relationships, and the self esteem of those involved because of the sheer hugeness of it all, combined with the insidious silence that is often associated with all things to do with female reproduction.

 

I have known since age 23 that I have a fertility ‘issue’, having been diagnosed with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) following years of irregular periods, strange weight gain, body hair and oily skin. I read up on PCOS, took the information to my GP, who ordered the necessary blood tests and internal uterus / ovary scan (fun – not) and confirmed my thoughts. I have PCOS, which means that my ovulation is out of whack. It doesn’t make pregnancy impossible, but it certainly can make it more challenging. I’m fully aware that I may have to go through the horrors of hormone treatment, medication and IVF, and that there is still no guarantee of a child at the end of it all.

 

It’s always been in the back of my mind, but it wasn’t until my marriage to S in 2009 at age 29 that the reality started to really weigh on my mind. S and I visited our GP, whose advice was to ‘get cracking’, which we promptly have done but to no avail yet.

 

One of the total arseholes about having PCOS is the irregular periods, meaning that 5-6 times a year I have ‘hope’; my period hasn’t arrived for 8 weeks and we immediately think ‘ooh, could it maybe have happened naturally’. Then comes the purchase of a pregnancy test with the heartbreaking single blue line as a result.

 

This doesn’t just affect me, it affects S deeply too. The only times I have seen him cry during our marriage is when he admits how painful our conception issues are for him. It must be doubly difficult for him; having to comfort me and the (irrational but real) guilt I face, while also feeling heartbroken himself.

 

I sometimes wonder if people are aware that we are not childless by choice, particularly given my commitment to my career (whatever my career will morph into!) and passion for feminism, choice and women’s rights. The reality is that until re-connecting with S I wasn’t desperate for children (although I did have a plan to have them one day), but once we had started dating again I have been burdened with an overwhelming desire to make a small creature that is part me, part S. I love the idea of having children who look like him, maybe have his personality, or mine, or their own! Yes, I can rationalise that it’s probably hormones talking, but that doesn’t take the pain away.

 

The reason this has all come to a head is the pain of having to endure another round of “mum’s are the best”, “being a mum has completed me” nonsense that comes up during the commercialised marketing opportunity that is Mother’s Day. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem celebrating mothers (mine is amazing), but I DO have a problem with the sheer hype about Mother’s Day that has the opposite effect of a celebration on many people; those who have lost children, those who can’t have them, those who are trying and trying to have them, those who have lost Mother’s, those who have become estranged from their Mother’s, those who were adopted and desperate to find their birth Mother, those who had their children taken from them when it was socially unacceptable to have a baby out of wedlock.

 

I am grateful that my Mother has always seen Mother’s Day as a commercialised waste of time, and has instead encouraged us to do nice things for her on a regular basis. She would rather us attend her PhD graduation, make her regular cups of teas and have long phone chats, instead of making a big fuss of her on a random day that has been designed to generate $$ for companies.

 

I make the comparison with Valentine’s Day. I’d rather S made me cups of coffee when I’m working on an essay, gets up in the morning with me when I have to get to the airport early and buys me flowers / chocolate / wine / ice cream occasionally. It would suck to be in a relationship when it was only celebrated once a year. I would likewise encourage those who go overboard on Valentine’s Day to also think about the effect of their celebrations on others. Since struggling with our infertility issues I have become acutely aware that shoving my happy relationship in other people’s faces could actually be really hurtful for those who are going through a breakup, separated from a loved one, bereaved, or single and lonely.

 

This isn’t to say we shouldn’t celebrate the happiness in our lives. But we should also do so sensitively and also keep a look out for our friends and families who have tough burdens to bear and think about their needs.

 

One further point before I leave you with some ‘do’s and don’ts’ for supporting a friend or family member who has infertility issues. Being a mum is not “the best”. People who say that are unintentionally ostracising and demeaning the work and lives of those who are not mothers. Just because we’re not mums doesn’t mean we can’t be “the best”. It doesn’t make us less loving, less caring, less hard working, less smart, less connected to people, or less valuable. We do other things that matter: we advocate for people, we work as cleaners, doctors, teachers, bus drivers and politicians. I am no less a fully-fledged adult woman because I haven’t popped out a sprog yet.

 

Do:

• Involve us in the lives of your children. Just because we don’t have them doesn’t mean we don’t like yours. Invite us to birthday parties, baptisms, school assemblies etc. When you leave us out but invite your friends who do have children you only ostracise us further.
• Do allow us to say ‘no’ though if it is a bit too hard.
• Ask us about our work and actually put some genuine interest into it.
• Organise a girls’ night, get a babysitter, and keep children out of the conversation.
• Remember that we childless ones can have sleepless nights, stress, and sickness too.

 

Don’t:

• Pity us. Treat us as human beings with full lives, because we don’t need children to have a full and interesting life.
• Expect us to get super excited when you get pregnant / have a child.
• Give advice on how to get pregnant, or promise that we will get pregnant one day. How could you possibly promise that?
• Tell me a story about someone that I’ve never met with PCOS who got pregnant after trying for years. How could that possibly help me?
• Forget about your childless friends after you’ve had a baby. We’re still here!
• Stick endless posts up on Facebook about your children’s nappies, teeth, sleeping routines etc. No offence, but no one really cares.*

 

 

 

* Ok, so that may be a little harsh, I don't mind hearing about children occasionally but when it's all I ever see it's quite a put-off and makes me assume that you have nothing else to talk about. For me, seeing your posts about kids all day is the other side to you putting up with constant political posts from me.

Abortion - why it needs to be legal (A Presentation)

Please find below (indeed below the Read More) the presentation I gave today on why abortion needs to be legal, and why we need a pro-choice law change. Many thanks to Kristy, Alana and Soraiya for organising it, and Nicole for pressing buttons, and everyone for coming along. Especially Nikki for being my friendly face in the crowd, and also big thanks to Deborah for proofing it from afar.

As you read please bear in mind that I was writing it to speak to the slides (which I've inserted as pics above the section of the speech that goes with them), and also that I've never done that before.

Here goes...

Quick hit: Snip snip

From Stuff's Business Day section:

Vasectomy specialist Dr Dirk Venter at the Henderson Medical Centre says there is definitely a link between financial concerns and a rising demand for vasectomies.

In the last two months, Venter has performed nearly double the amount of vasectomy procedures.

"It used to take a lot more convincing to get the men to undergo the procedure. But we are getting a lot of people who have just had a new baby come straight in for a vasectomy."

...With the recession showing no signs of easing and the job market becoming increasingly grim (unemployment now stands at a six year high of five percent), it is understandable why some men may want to put on a halt on having more children.

No estimates exist in New Zealand for the cost of bringing up a child, but in the United Kingdom, figures have been kept for the last decade.

The 2009 cost? A typical family can expect to fork out an average of £186,032 to raise a child from birth to the age of 21, according to UK insurance and investment group, Liverpool Victoria.

So translating that into Kiwi dollars using the current exchange rate - an eye watering $479,516.

Yes, it's a toss up which is more eye watering, the money or the vasectomy.

Click through for the whole article.

Kind of odd that this was in the Business section?

Clucky

What the hell's wrong with me?

I've got two children - a perfectly respectable family size - whom I love to bits. I feel more or less fulfilled in life, and even if I didn't, I realistically couldn't afford any more kids or fit them into my busy existence. So why do I have these terrible pangs of cluckiness? Pangs that make me forget two hideous, sickly pregnancies, followed by two dreadfully traumatic births? And the stress, the mess, the never having a moment's time to myself?

Most of the time I'm reasonably sensible about such things, but I have phases where the sight or sound of babies make me melt. I want to pick up other people's infants and subject them to extensive bouts of senseless smooching. I wonder if, in my case, coming from a Catholic family of five kids is a factor. Being from a big family is, for me at least, a blessing, and something I would have liked my own children to share. Is my cluckiness just my subconscious telling me I've chickened out - failed to complete my breeding mission? Will I eventually turn into one of those parents who nags their kids to provide me with grandchildren?

Sometimes, I have vague, compensatory ideas that I'll offer my home to foster kids when I'm more financially settled, older, wiser, and generally have my shit together. But I believe it takes a very special kind of person to care for these kids, and much as I'd like to believe otherwise, I'm not sure I'm up to the task.

Of course, I'm hardly alone in my bouts of cluckiness. For some women, it can actually be quite upsetting - I know women who've realised that the reproductive part of their lives is coming to an end, and have felt quite distressed that more kids is no longer an option. But I don't for a moment think cluckiness is an inevitable part of being female. Plenty of women I know don't experience it at all. And I know the odd bloke who's even more hopelessly clucky than I am.

How many THM readers share this strange affliction? Can anyone recommend an effective treatment? (And don't suggest having more babies!)

Is there ever a 'right' time to have a kid?

Almost a year ago the papers were bitching women out for waiting around too long for Mr Right and thus were having babies far too late for their liking. Now they are angsting that women are having babies too early.

Which leads me to ask an important question, is there ever a 'right' time to have a kid? Ideally a couple should be a position where they are financially and more importantly emotionally able to support their family. However that it is where my judgement stops. I don't care if a woman is 16 or 45, it is her decision when she feels she is ready to have children.

More importantly where the hell is the analysis of the fathers age in all of this? Oh that's right, I forgot babies are made by magic pixies so we don't bother to collect stats on that.

Quick hit: Daughter of Palin says abstinence is "not realistic at all"

From the NZ Herald this afternoon, Sarah Palin's 18 year old daughter Bristol has said in an interview that teen sex is not a great ideal, but expecting total abstinence from people is unrealistic. The rest of the article is rather interesting too, particularly Sarah Palin's comments in support of her daughter, which warmed my heart a little I must say:

Bristol said telling her parents she was pregnant was "harder than labour".

Levi and her best friend went with her to break the news.

"I was just so sick to my stomach. And so finally, my best friend just, like, blurted it out," she said.

Bristol also said it bothered her to hear that many people thought her mother was making her have the baby, when it was her own choice.

The governor also appeared in the interview, recorded on Saturday in Fairbanks.

She said she was proud of her daughter, "wanting to take on an advocacy role and, you know, just let other girls know that this is - it's not the most ideal situation, but certainly, make the most of it," Sarah Palin said.

"And Bristol is a strong and bold young woman and she is an amazing mum. And this little baby is very lucky to have her as a mama. He's going to be just fine."

I wasn't very impressed with Palin senior during the US election campaign, but it's great that she's backing her child so strongly.

fertility... or lack thereof

my first pregnancy was an accident. i really didn't want to be pregnant, and seriously thought about an abortion. in the end, i went through with it because i thought it wasn't fair to punish my child-to-be for my own particular problems. once i'd decided to go ahead, instinct/nature seemed to take over, and it wasn't too long before i was happy with the pregnancy and feeling a precious connection with the thing fluttering (and later kicking and hiiccuping) in my tummy.

the second pregnancy wasn't so easy. from the time i wanted to be pregnant til the time i conceived was about 18 months. i can't say that i was majorly stressed out, but it did bother me. and i hated all the nosy, overly-concerned relatives and friends advising me that i shouldn't wait so long before having another one, and i shouldn't have an only child. thankfully i did get pregnant, which shut them for a little while (then they started on the "when are you going to start trying for a boy?" it just never ends!).

so i have a very little experience of what it's like to not get pregnant when you want to. it's not much. it's not anything like the experience of a friend of mine who has spent the last couple of years spending tens of thousands of dollars on expensive IVF treatments, desperately trying to get pregnant.

in her latest attempt, she conceived triplets, but one by one they died. she miscarried the last one a few days ago. another hope shattered, another bundle of cash down the tubes. it's hard to watch her pain, it must be worse for her to feel it.

i comfort her in the best way i can. i tell to keep remembering all the good things in her life, to be thankful for the love and support around her, for her general health & well-being, for her nice house and comfortable lifestyle. just keep concentrating on the good stuff, there's so much you could lose, appreciate it while you have it.

it seems to help, but even as i say it, i know that there's no way for me to really understand how she feels. it's all very well to think of the logic of the situation, to know that there are many people that are much worse off than her on this planet, from a lack of much more basic needs. it's all very well to counsel patience, but i know it's not always realistic when wanting to have your own child is as much biological as it is cerebral.

so my thoughts are with my friend, as she goes through her struggle. hopefully she can find a place in her life where there is peace and she can find happiness in other ways if pregnancy doesn't happen for her.

Whose responsibility is contraception?

Macdoctor has responded to a story in the Herald about a shortage of Depo-Provera a contraceptive injection. I'm not going to rant about this, other than to say Pharmac and Pfizer need to have better systems in place to ensure that one rejected shipment doesn't result in a 2 weeks of no product. But I do want to pull out one quote from his post which I think discussing:

Pregnancy most assuredly has a “fault” side to it. Pregnancy has consequences for both men and women. Should the woman be allowed to have an abortion if she has been intentionally reckless? Should the man have to pay child support if the woman doesn’t tell him she may not be protected against pregnancy? These are ethical questions that arise purely because of the issue of responsibility.

His comments seem to be based on basic premise that medication and responsibility for fertility isn’t a male responsibility, it’s the women's, and you’d best not forget that. Yes in the end women are the ones that end up getting pregnant and have the 'luck' of determining whether their pregnancy continues or not. But unless they are carrying the son of god, their eggs didn't fertilize themselves. And given how many men resist paying child support for their progeny, you'd think that men would be just as keen to take responsibility for minimizing risk of an unplanned pregnancy through the simple act of using a condom.

But in my experience that is not the case. Although my sample size is not huge (and I'm not revealing the magic number on the internet), there is a sizable chunk of straight male population who would prefer not to use a condom if they can avoid it. The most common reason seems to be a diminished sensation whilst doing the deed and having stop in the middle of getting hot and heavy and put one on was also a common reason to avoid their use.

During my 'asian years' the situation was even worse. I was surprised how many men I slept with in Korea assumed that I must be a slut because I carried and *shock* knew how to use a condom. My fellow male expats also had a similar bizarre situation where their partners would be offended if they suggested a condom because that must mean they are 'dirty' girls. Then throw in one large global misinformation campaign on condoms effectiveness and it is little wonder that condoms have a bad wrap amongst large sections of the population.

But surely male forms of chemical contraception are on the way right? Umm no. Over the past few years the big pharmaceutical companies have halted their studies of this. Why? Too expensive and apparently big pharma thinks guys don't want it. But if even a small percentage of sexually active men agreed to try a new method of birth control, that would represent a huge number of potential consumers and I'm pretty sure that someone somewhere could come up with an effective way to market 'have plenty o' sex and no babies' to men. So why we are in a bizarre position of having a major industry deciding that men - millions of whom manage to do things every day which require more effort and less potential reward than birth control - are simply uninterested and incapable of swallowing a tiny pill on a daily basis or go in for shots every month or so?

One the of the reasons for the hold-ups for drug development in this case is actually legitimate: a significant number of men don’t actually respond to hormonal birth control, leaving it fully effective in the majority of cases where it does work, and completely ineffective in the ones where it doesn’t. But even when fully effective male chemical birth control becomes available, based on big pharma's attitude and that around condom useage there’s still significant male resistance to the idea.

Any form of male birth control is going to involve doing something to a man’s sperm—stopping ejaculation completely (but not orgasm) or causing no sperm to be made or released, or keeping them from maturing. And I think that on a deeper level many men would be uncomfortable with chemicals messing with their swimmers because they think that their virility and therefore their masculinity would be compromised if they weren't just a few strokes away from producing a baby.

On the otherhand, women are expected to just accept chemical interference with their reproductive systems as a matter of course. We all know that motherhood and pregnancy and fecundity are strongly linked to our ideas of womanhood just as much as they are for men yet female chemical birth control (or was that period control) is one of the more popular forms of birth control. However the male version still seems to be years away and not many people think that they would take it.

Which leads me back to my original question: whose responsbility is contraception?

Discuss.

Eggs

According to today's Dom Post, the parents of little girls suffering from cancer are having the girls' eggs harvested before they undergo cancer treatment. Treatment may damage girls' fertility, so parents are trying to ensure their daughters will have the choice to one day have kids of their own.

I feel fraught about this; and then I feel hypocritical for feeling fraught about it. I'm lucky to have no fertility issues: I wanted babies, so I went ahead and made some. If I'd been unable to have kids, I would probably have been devastated.

But the harvesting of little girls' eggs makes me feel yucky for a host of reasons. Here are some:

- It makes an implicit value judgement on the lives of women, suggesting that having kids is - or ought to be - a key life goal.

- It exposes children to the discomfort of what I've heard is an unpleasant procedure. Sometimes, as a parent, you've got to make your kids go through nasty stuff for their own good (vaccinations, for example), but the gain should outweigh the pain. In this case, I'm not sure it does.

- To me, egg harvesting seems at the very edge of what a parent can reasonably determine is in his or her child's interests. I don't like the view that kids are property of parents, and that parents therefore get to call all the shots regarding their kids lives. Sure, there are times when I make decisions about my kids' lives, but I'm reluctant to go too far down the road of deciding what is or isn't right for them. I'll make them wear jackets when it's cold, but I don't force them to go to church or learn ballet, for example. I don't feel I have the 'authority' to call the shots about some aspects of their lives (eg, their spiritual development, interests, future life choices about fertility, etc).

What do you lot think?

Dear Ambivalent of Auckland

Hey Me,

I know what you’re thinking.

You reckon life is going pretty well so why make any big changes? Why halve our household income overnight, and increase the expenses at the same time? Why upset the cat by introducing someone new to her house? Why radically change the body you’ve finally come to accept? Why put yourself in the position of having to take significant unpaid leave from a job that’s really quite rewarding? Why take the risk of irrevocably attaching a new person to your life when there’s a possibility you might not like them? Why put yourself in a different place from so many of your friends, somewhere they might not want to visit anymore? Why screw with the equilibrium of a relationship that’s nicely balanced, by adding a third person to the equation?

You’re full of doubt, not least of it a big dollop of self-doubt about becoming a mother, and so you’re consciously pushing away thoughts and conversations about breeding. After all, you’re even not thirty yet, no need to rush.

Here’s a little truth about where you’ll be in a couple of years time. You’ll be so glad to have Wriggly in your life. You’ll be unable to stop yourself from telling people how wonderful he is, even when you’ve just told them five minutes earlier. You’ll feel a sense of achievement, not just because you’re keeping him alive and healthy and happy, but also because you built him with your body, and you’re continuing to do so by breastfeeding (oh and by the way, although that’ll be incredibly hard for several months it will get easier and you’ll be so relieved you persevered). Wriggly will be someone to cuddle and cry with when times are hard, and someone whose laughs and smiles will brighten your day, even when they’re directed at someone else (including the peacock lamp in the lounge).

A baby is a scary thing. It’s scary before it’s real, it’s scary when you’re pregnant, it’s scary when it first arrives and looks so fragile and vulnerable and puzzling. It’s still scary even when you have a pretty good handle on what’s going on (which will take at least three months). It’s scary every time something changes, and change is constant. At times it will be so scary that you’ll doubt yourself more than you have in many many years. But it’s worth it because scary is only part of the picture.

Adding a child adds more love. More love for you, more love for your partner, more love for your family and friends, even more love for the cat. Sometimes you’ll feel that the love is filling you so entirely, to the very ends of your fingertips and toes, that you’ll explode. It won’t always be like that, but when it is close your eyes tight and store that sensation away securely. That memory will get you through a lot.

You probably won’t believe this. You’ll want to see for yourself, even while you worry that there is no exchange card for your own progeny. And in a while you’ll be where I am now, writing this letter to myself and reflecting on how much better this mothering thing is than I ever thought it could be when I was you.

Arohanui,
Me.

Cross-post Because women are just baby machines....

Cross-posted at the ex-expat.

Vileness corner

Not to put a finer point on it but both breeders and non-breeders are going to have to rely on someone to change our adult diapers and keep the economy expanding while we are consuming our retirement savings and that someone is going to be those currently not potty trained. Whether this next generation is going to look out for us through the welfare state or because we are individually paying them to do is a moot point and one worthy of political debate.

But what shouldn't be in the political discourse is whether a woman, because apparently men's parental status is never up for discussion, who haven't had children being referred to as selfish. There could medical reasons, there could money reasons, there might be career reasons, their partner may not want to or they hadn't found a partner at all. All reasons that someone might not have had a child and not a crime against humanity for them to so. Because in the end it isn't anyone's business whether a women, or for that matter a man, makes the decision to breed or not to breed.

Cross-post - Thank you for (not) breeding

Cross-posted at Ex-expat

This seems to becoming a weekly thing, ex-expat being pissed at something in the SST. Last week I was away from the computer to complain about yet another article in which women were told we should stop holding our for Mr Right bollocks. But sure enough the SST has again made my blood boil again with reports that New Zealand women are not not having children. Zuh? Unless I misunderstood my sex ed classes, I was under the impression that men were also needed to create offspring and ideally should be around to help raise them.

I am well aware that men's reproductive lifespan is far longer which is part of the reason for the undue focus on women's reproduction. However what is making my blood boil is the underlying assumption of this and other stories is that women are the ones that will take time out to raise a family.

And certainly as someone who is getting into her late 20s, I am well aware of the pressure for me to 'settle down' and 'sprog up.' Mostly it comes from other women for whom my status as a happy single is source of immense concern that I am may end up husband-less child-less and without a large mortgage on a big house.

But the simple reason is that I am not sure that I want a husband, a mortgage and most importantly I am in no rush to have children. Hell I am not even ready to have the conversation with myself about whether I actually want children. I do realise at my age this is something that I do need to think about. However it is my choice as to whether I wish to contribute to the gene pool or not and it is, or at least in my view, should be, the most important decision that I will ever make in my life. Unlike marriages which can be dissolved, it isn't like you can stuff a kid back in and ask for a refund if things don't work out. They are yours for life.

Which is why I don't understand how people can be so caviler about having kids. Whether it is to fix an unhealthy relationship or from people who have bought into the talks from their friends and family on the subject which always seem to gloss over the hard parts of parenting.

But perhaps it is because I don't have a dewy-eyed view of child-rearing. There is a 10-year age gap between my brother and I thus am well-aware of how much hard work children and babies are. Particularly because my family had a part-time parent. My dad worked in an industry that in between months of not working demanded 14-16 hour days for months at a time and often involved working in far-flung locations. When my brother was just a few months old Dad went to Africa for almost four months leaving my mother with myself, my six year old sister and no family in town. As the eldest child, it was my responsibility to help pick up some of the slack.

While this was a big burden for a 10 year old, there have been some bonuses. Unlike most of my friends, I have had some hands-on experience in dealing with these weird creatures we call babies. I can change a diaper and learned how to cook for the rest of the family when my mum was busy. I also learned that despite the best of intentions, single parenthood may become a reality whether by choice or circumstance and I should make no assumptions that parenting will always be a team effort in my decision to breed.

But as result of this experience, I do have immense respect for people who decide to breed, particularly if it they are doing it because they want to do it. Because along with all the fun parts of parenting it undoubtedly a hard and, at times, an incredibly isolating experience.

But I also have respect for those who choose or have foisted upon them the other option, to not have children. For those who wish to smash the glass ceiling in their fields, a child might hinder that goal and it is not my nor anyone's place to begrudge them their decision to be child-free. Because along with all the good stuff about not having children, to go against societal norms can be hard and, at times, an incredibly isolating experience.

Moreover I do wish that our discussions over babymaking would stop making the assumption that it is just women who should be making decisions about whether they want a high-flying career or a baby because as I said at the beginning of my rant, men have a role in reproduction as well. Also because there are real alternatives to the primary caregiver-loses-all option.

And again I find myself looking at my own experience to see that it can be done. During the course of his working life my father built a highly successful business from scratch. Because my mother was in full-time employment, it was my Dad who was the parent that was the primary caregiver for me when I was a baby and who was also the parent who often accompanied my sister and I on school trips when his business was quiet. He enjoyed the experience immensely however almost three decades later is sad that my upbringing is still viewed as being unorthodox. Although I can assure you that it was highly revolutionary back in the early to mid 1980s and did ensure some rather odd situations during my childhood.

But I do wonder how many other couples there are out there that are pursuing a 'third way' in child-rearing. Surely if our discussions on this topic are going to evolve past the gender roles of the past we need to see present alternatives to build a more just future for both genders.