The Tyranny of Science over Mothers | Hacker News Reader

The Tyranny of Science over Mothers

thereader.mitpress.mit.edu

36 pointsthe-mitr22 comments

Some people go too far in parenting and pregnancy advice, sure, but apparently that's not enough to sell a book, so hyperbole packed in wishy-washy word-salad it is. Did these people not read about the incredibly high rate of maternal death before we had some understanding of infection? That seems precisely within the topic, but it's not mentioned. Instead, there's nonsensical post-modern philosophy style word games, like "We suggest this is because the pregnant body is the ultimate unknown: (1) it is corporeally veiled — showing and yet hiding the fetal body within" as if that explains anything.

Yeah this trips my agi-prop sensors. It may not be what they're going for, but it makes me weary.

First paragraph -- "the default is to subject women to more — not fewer — restrictions" -- fly the flag high and clear. THERE IS AN ATTACK ON WOMEN

Second * third paragraphs -- popular bourgeoisie white buzzwords, indicting Neo-liberal society, blaming marketing (it's the corporations). The entire article could be summed up essentially w/ the 5th paragraph, where it calls out neo-liberalism as putting all of the emphasis on the individual's choices while ignoring broader impacts. That a culture has sprung up around that doesn't require 6+ more paragraphs.

Furthermore, how much of this is just population and economic dynamics? Yeah Moms c. 1960 didn't have to do all of those things listed at the end -- because there weren't 8 billion people trying to buy up all of the houses and fight for the scraps that billionaires haven't taken.

The authors focus on science as the source of tyranny over mothers is wrong.

One just has to look at various traditions across cultures concerning pregnant women and new mothers to come across a massive lists of things you should and should not eat and things you should and should not do.

My guess is that human society has always seen pregnancy as mysterious and dangerous and very necessary to the continuation of the society. Thus, society has always told pregnant women and mothers all sorts of advice/rules about things that they thought would decrease the risk to mother or baby. This has continued into the scientific era, where people try to have at least some scientific backing for the advice.

Many times, the modern scientific advice is much less restrictive than the traditional, non scientific advice with regards to what can be eaten and what activities may be undertaken while pregnant.

It just reads like they optimized for best impact, trying to cherry pick their way to presenting a big strawman and strike it. At least, scientists and doctors have a much more nuanced point of view than the authors imply they do. The resentment towards constraints imposed by parenthood is also not a novel phenomenon.

Considering the background of the authors, they certainly demonstrated some expertise and put a lot of effort in the rhetoric, "Science over Mothers", which makes me doubly doubtful of their level motivation to explain the problem better and clearer than scientists do:

Jessica Clements is Assistant Professor of English and Composition Commons Director at Whitworth University in Spokane, Washington, and Managing Editor of Present Tense: A Journal of Rhetoric in Society.

Kari Nixon is Assistant Professor of English at Whitworth University. She is the author of Kept from All Contagion and Quarantine Life from Cholera to COVID-19.

Most new parents want what is best for their child and so there is much research into it. I don't see what the problem is. Are they mad that science told us that smoking was bad for children?

Also a lot of the rant, and yes I call it a rant was not aimed at "science", but more of a culture of parental perfectionism.

I think you missed some nuance. I read it to mean that the Victorian models of motherhood and female-hood are magnified by the inability of (ethical) science to offer firm causal explanations for childhood outcomes. If there's a source it's good old fashioned Victorian patriarchy.

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.

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.

> 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.

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?

> 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)?

The results of studies and research are in no ways binding for human behavior.

I feel the authors are shouting into the mirror.

Their use of "neoliberal" is rather bizarre, as the now flagged post points out.

As a reminder, Reaganomics is neoliberalism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism and it's hard to see how a greater push for free-market capitalism is responsible for this issue. Yet this article blames neoliberalism 4 seperate times.

I think they’re trying to convey the idea that all aspects of child safety became something that could (and should) be packaged, marketed, and sold, and that any social safety nets society might offer are insufficient or that you’re morally deficient if you rely on them, and those things combined left parents feeling they had to buy lots of stuff to keep their kids safe.

I know there’s no universally-agreed-upon definition of neoliberalism but from where I’m standing it would appear that it heaps praise on people who find a way to monetize things that people hadn’t previously thought to monetize (like child nutrition or play) and that it casts scorn on people who don’t take command of their own destiny, so I can sort of see a connection?

They are referring to the extreme notion of individual responsibility that forms the basis for neoliberalism and also alluding to the notion that market-like logic can be applied to nearly every aspect of life[1].

They didn't seem to define neoliberalism anywhere, which I think is a weak point. The term is rather vague. So I looked at the book for clarification:

Whether one agrees with universal health care or not, this example nevertheless illustrates the fundamental logic of neoliberal culture (which we argue defines our present moment in all spheres): deflect public recognition away from systemic or infrastructural gaps and failings and instead redirect focus on how the individual should have helped optimize their own life. (p. 10, Optimal Motherhood)

In this chapter, they also refer to neoliberal view that people must be completely self-reliant to solve their problems. While some level of self-reliance is vital to survival, not all problems are solvable as an individual.

Tying it back to pregnancy and health, good prenatal care has a massive impact on healthy pregnancies. Prenatal care depends on a multitude of things: is care even available in your region (public health), can you afford to receive that care (public health), can you travel to that care (infrastructure)? Are you able to get off work for those appointments (labor laws)? These are greatly impacted by public policy, which are directly influenced (in the US) by neoliberal ideals.

But instead of asking, "Why are so many miscarriages are happening in region X?" it's easier to deflect by saying, "Those women must not care about their babies enough."

[1]: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/7/18/15992226/neoliber...

Thank you for that explanation, it did a lot to explain the title.

I didn't flag the article but I am now of the opinion it should be un-flagged.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com