I'm a little bit obsessed with pregnancy shows these days. I don't like the touchy-feely ones like A Baby Story, but feel an obsessive need to watch 16 and Pregnant, I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant, and anything with "quintuplets" in the title.
I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant is especially fascinating. Once upon a time, I couldn't understand how someone could not know, but now that I am three months into a pregnancy and have had no regular morning sickness and no noticeable weight gain or bump, I can imagine it a little more.
Of course, I would notice that I haven't had my period because my cycle is as regular as a metronome, but that's about it. Most of the women on this show have irregular periods. I'm overweight, so I imagine that it will be a while before my abdomen screams baby rather than normal chub. I imagine that my pregnancy will be totally obvious by August, but I can imagine making it to May or June without being 100% sure.
They only feature happy outcomes on I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant. Miraculously, all of the moms abstained from smoking and drinking during their undetected pregnancies and all of the babies are born healthy. I wonder how common it actually is for everything to turn out ok when the mom has had no prenatal care.
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
In the Womb
FB and I just watched the National Geographic documentary In the Womb. Meh. It was not great.
Some of the footage was interesting, particularly the 3-D and 4-D scans, but the whole thing dragged on a bit. The segment on the second trimester was especially protracted.
I wish there had been more context. For the most part, the narration played over the same dozen computer-animated clips over and over again, without offering a lot of comparative information. The most interesting parts were when the camera ventured outside the womb to show an in-utero surgical procedure or . . . well, that was really the only time. There were 1,000 shots of pregnant women's abdomens — strangely, every woman in this movie wears midriff-baring shirts for the duration of her pregnancy — but those clips were generally static and context-free.
I would have liked to see more charts and graphs, more discussion of complications, and more discussion of worldwide practices and statistics. I suppose they wanted to focus on the "typical" development of a single fetus, but it was frustratingly vague and general. The narrator didn't even offer basic information like how much the baby weighed at birth, which took away from the particular birth story. If they wanted to do general development, they should have included more statistics and variations; if they wanted to showcase a particular case as typical, they should have given the specific details.
In all, it was unsatisfying. And long (90 minutes). And I found the weird blue, zappy-sounding neuron theme really unsettling.
Some of the footage was interesting, particularly the 3-D and 4-D scans, but the whole thing dragged on a bit. The segment on the second trimester was especially protracted.
I wish there had been more context. For the most part, the narration played over the same dozen computer-animated clips over and over again, without offering a lot of comparative information. The most interesting parts were when the camera ventured outside the womb to show an in-utero surgical procedure or . . . well, that was really the only time. There were 1,000 shots of pregnant women's abdomens — strangely, every woman in this movie wears midriff-baring shirts for the duration of her pregnancy — but those clips were generally static and context-free.
I would have liked to see more charts and graphs, more discussion of complications, and more discussion of worldwide practices and statistics. I suppose they wanted to focus on the "typical" development of a single fetus, but it was frustratingly vague and general. The narrator didn't even offer basic information like how much the baby weighed at birth, which took away from the particular birth story. If they wanted to do general development, they should have included more statistics and variations; if they wanted to showcase a particular case as typical, they should have given the specific details.
In all, it was unsatisfying. And long (90 minutes). And I found the weird blue, zappy-sounding neuron theme really unsettling.
Monday, February 22, 2010
16 and Pregnant
Ok, let's be honest: I watch 16 and Pregnant. I have my TiVo set up to catch it so that I won't miss an episode if I go to bed at 8:00.
I find this show incredibly depressing/infuriating, and I can only hope that teenagers who watch it are getting the same message I am: your expectations for your deadbeat boyfriend are totally unreasonable. I don't think it glamorizes teen pregnancy at all.
Anyway, I happened across an article about the show that showcased a novel criticism. Jami Quesenberry, mother of eight, says of 16 and Pregnant:
I find this show incredibly depressing/infuriating, and I can only hope that teenagers who watch it are getting the same message I am: your expectations for your deadbeat boyfriend are totally unreasonable. I don't think it glamorizes teen pregnancy at all.
Anyway, I happened across an article about the show that showcased a novel criticism. Jami Quesenberry, mother of eight, says of 16 and Pregnant:
I found those shows so depressing that I am afraid they may encourage abortion . . . The one girl who responsibly decided to put her baby up for adoption, at least in the episode I watched of ‘Teen Mom,’ was still depressed with her decision after five months . . . The other mothers [on the show] had lives that seemed stifling . . . If a teen watched that show, she may decide to terminate her pregnancy rather than go through what these teens are going through.Well played, madam. Quesenberry has blocked the show in her home, presumably so that her eight children don't get the wrong idea about teenage pregnancy being all depressing and shit.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Teen Mom
I've been watching MTV reruns of Teen Mom over the last few days. It's fascinating.
I hope that teenagers who watch this show get the same message I'm getting from it: your teenage boyfriend will not help you with the baby. Some of the girls on the show have very high hopes for their irresponsible partners, but the show consistently demonstrates that the fathers are disengaged, perpetually tardy, inconsiderate, and oblivious to reality. They say things like, "Why are you yelling at me?" after their tardiness prevents their girlfriends from going to classes/interviews/work. They are useless.
But the thing I don't understand is the moms' reluctance to put their kids in day care. Even though they are failing classes, missing work, and resenting being stuck at home with the babies, two of the moms have a horror of day care.
Eventually, both realized that they could not rely on their loser boyfriends for childcare and found professional alternatives, but they were obviously not pleased. One, who had been living in a fleabag motel, interrogated the fresh-scrubbed daycare staff about how often they vaccuum the floor. The other kept calling her son back to her to say extended goodbyes even though he was very happily playing with the other children.
Of course, it must be hard to leave your child with strangers. Still, the mothers' quality of life seems so low, I can't understand why they wouldn't welcome the chance to have reliable help. They don't trust the daycare providers at all, but it seems to me that the kids can only benefit from social interaction with other kids and the supervision of caring professionals.
I hope that teenagers who watch this show get the same message I'm getting from it: your teenage boyfriend will not help you with the baby. Some of the girls on the show have very high hopes for their irresponsible partners, but the show consistently demonstrates that the fathers are disengaged, perpetually tardy, inconsiderate, and oblivious to reality. They say things like, "Why are you yelling at me?" after their tardiness prevents their girlfriends from going to classes/interviews/work. They are useless.
But the thing I don't understand is the moms' reluctance to put their kids in day care. Even though they are failing classes, missing work, and resenting being stuck at home with the babies, two of the moms have a horror of day care.
Eventually, both realized that they could not rely on their loser boyfriends for childcare and found professional alternatives, but they were obviously not pleased. One, who had been living in a fleabag motel, interrogated the fresh-scrubbed daycare staff about how often they vaccuum the floor. The other kept calling her son back to her to say extended goodbyes even though he was very happily playing with the other children.
Of course, it must be hard to leave your child with strangers. Still, the mothers' quality of life seems so low, I can't understand why they wouldn't welcome the chance to have reliable help. They don't trust the daycare providers at all, but it seems to me that the kids can only benefit from social interaction with other kids and the supervision of caring professionals.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Twins by Surprise
Last night, sleepless, I found myself watching a TLC special called "Twins by Surprise." The show recreated the stories of four women who thought they were carrying singletons, but ended up with surprise twins. One of the mothers had her babies in 1979, before ultrasound was routine, two more were assisted by midwives (one home birth, one hospital), and one one had an unassisted homebirth.
It was an upbeat show — all the twins were born full term (or nearly so) and healthy — but the final story really bothered me. The woman who had the unassisted homebirth had no prenatal care and was relying on her obviously clueless husband's help. Both parents assured the camera that they had done all the necessary research and preparation, but I was skeptical.
I went and read some freebirth websites to find out what she could have been thinking. The sites I read had some good points, but also some very flimsy reasoning. I agree that routine birth is not a medical event and that doctors and hospitals do not always provide the best care. All five of my mother's children were born with the assistance of midwives, without drugs, and I fully intend to find a birth center for my own little Snapdragon.*
The part where the freebirth websites go off the rails is in their assertion that unassisted birth is a reversion to a natural state/historical norm. They cursorily acknowledge the existence of midwives, but all of the sites I read portray the choice as a stark contrast between strapped-down, knocked-out c-section and giving birth serenely and solitarily in a field of daisies. They draw facile analogies between quadrupeds and humans, implying that solitary birth is natural for women.
In fact, solo childbirth among humans is an historical anomaly. Social birth and bipedalism go hand-in-hand. In my other life, I am an historian and I can say for sure that throughout recorded history, solo births have never been the norm. It has been much more typical for women to be assisted by mothers, sisters, neighbors, and experienced midwives. Skillful helpers have soothed and served women in labor, encouraged them, and dealt with emergencies.
I am sympathetic to some of freebirth advocates' points: labor is natural, we are inappropriately socialized to expect suffering rather than competence, we need to listen to women and trust them.
But I don't think it follows that freebirth is the logical end of these beliefs. Many midwives and mothers — and even some doctors — are respectful and helpful, rather than overbearing and meddlesome. I don't think freebirth should be illegal because I'm staunchly pro-choice, but speaking for myself, I wish to be surrounded by caring, competent women, just as my ancestors were.**
*I have nothing against homebirth and think it's probably best for a lot of people — my major reason for prefering a birth center to a home birth is that I want to leave as much mess/bodily fluids elsewhere, rather than in my 700-sq-ft house.
**I do hope to have FB there with me, too — a feature of modern birth I fully embrace.
It was an upbeat show — all the twins were born full term (or nearly so) and healthy — but the final story really bothered me. The woman who had the unassisted homebirth had no prenatal care and was relying on her obviously clueless husband's help. Both parents assured the camera that they had done all the necessary research and preparation, but I was skeptical.
I went and read some freebirth websites to find out what she could have been thinking. The sites I read had some good points, but also some very flimsy reasoning. I agree that routine birth is not a medical event and that doctors and hospitals do not always provide the best care. All five of my mother's children were born with the assistance of midwives, without drugs, and I fully intend to find a birth center for my own little Snapdragon.*
The part where the freebirth websites go off the rails is in their assertion that unassisted birth is a reversion to a natural state/historical norm. They cursorily acknowledge the existence of midwives, but all of the sites I read portray the choice as a stark contrast between strapped-down, knocked-out c-section and giving birth serenely and solitarily in a field of daisies. They draw facile analogies between quadrupeds and humans, implying that solitary birth is natural for women.
In fact, solo childbirth among humans is an historical anomaly. Social birth and bipedalism go hand-in-hand. In my other life, I am an historian and I can say for sure that throughout recorded history, solo births have never been the norm. It has been much more typical for women to be assisted by mothers, sisters, neighbors, and experienced midwives. Skillful helpers have soothed and served women in labor, encouraged them, and dealt with emergencies.
I am sympathetic to some of freebirth advocates' points: labor is natural, we are inappropriately socialized to expect suffering rather than competence, we need to listen to women and trust them.
But I don't think it follows that freebirth is the logical end of these beliefs. Many midwives and mothers — and even some doctors — are respectful and helpful, rather than overbearing and meddlesome. I don't think freebirth should be illegal because I'm staunchly pro-choice, but speaking for myself, I wish to be surrounded by caring, competent women, just as my ancestors were.**
*I have nothing against homebirth and think it's probably best for a lot of people — my major reason for prefering a birth center to a home birth is that I want to leave as much mess/bodily fluids elsewhere, rather than in my 700-sq-ft house.
**I do hope to have FB there with me, too — a feature of modern birth I fully embrace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
