Making a minefield of motherhood

Why are fewer women having children? Exposure to endless panics about the dangers of parenting might have something to do with it

In recent months there has been considerable discussion and angst regarding Europe's declining fertility rate. Compared to 20 or 30 years ago, the average family size has declined from 2.4 children to around 1.7. In countries such as Germany, some 30 per cent of women will remain childless. Social commentators believe greater female independence, individualist lifestyles and worries regarding the financial cost of parenthood are to blame.

Those changes are undoubtedly contributing factors, but alongside the alarmist panics over population decline, there appears to be little or no positive identification with childbirth and childrearing these days. Could the dire risks and predictions attached to parenting by academics, analysts and commentators also be making adults cautious about procreating?

Back in April, there were two cases in the UK that highlighted today's negative attitudes towards motherhood and parenting. The first was the case of 63-year-old Patricia Rashbrook, who conceived after receiving infertility treatment from controversial Italian doctor, Severino Antinori. The second involved a perhaps more familiar press folk devil - a girl of 12 becoming pregnant and deciding to keep the baby.

The `extremities' in age of conception is relatively unusual, and thus justifiably newsworthy. But the cases also provided an acceptable cover for some rather unacceptable views. So instead of marvelling at the wonders of reproductive technology, Antinori's breakthroughs have only generated scorn and derision from all corners. Josephine Quintavalle of the lobby group Comment on Reproductive Ethics argued that Ms Rashbrook was `being selfish.. It is extremely difficult for a child to have a mother who is as old as a grandmother would be.'

No doubt there is a degree of self-centeredness involved in having children; but the idea of motherhood being `selfish' is a novel one. After all, one of the factors pushing adults away from parenting is the commitment and self-sacrifice that goes along with it. In the case of Rashbrook and her husband, some believe the couple's advanced years means they either won't be able to cope or will leave their child orphaned. Either way, the Rashbrooks are seen, in the words of the ironically titled Pro-Life group, as `irresponsible'. The irritation here is with a couple who are potentially placing burdens on others and society.

A very similar response was notable in the case of the pregnant 12-year-old in West Lothian, Scotland. One Scottish journalist argued: `They (the state) will be expected to pick up the pieces when the baby is born and disappears into a chaotic mess of domestic childcare arrangements supported by a raft of benefit payments.' Reading such articles, it is hard to work out who is most ill-suited for child-rearing in this case: the young girl, her `chain-smoking mother', or Scotland's welfare services. The journalist described this story as `the saddest thing I think I've written about'. Presumably mass fatalities through famine and earthquakes aren't quite as horrific as the birth of a new baby. Presented like this, is it any wonder that parenting might not be quite as attractive as another foreign holiday?

Although the rare cases of pregnant 12-year-olds and pensioner mothers will be used to amplify all kinds of `irresponsible parent' fears, women in their twenties, thirties and forties are not exempt from motherhood panics either. If women have children in their twenties they are said to risk falling off the career ladder and having to bring up their children in poverty (as well as being considered `too young' to raise children). If women have children in their thirties and forties there are numerous reports and articles to tell them they are putting their own lives at greater risk and are more likely to give birth to a child with Down's syndrome.

Whichever way it's discussed, it almost seems sensible and advisable for women not to give birth at all. It is telling that in Britain investment in IVF treatment is not a priority for the NHS, as some of my friends have found out. And it says something about contemporary attitudes that legislation on `the right to die' seems to be greeted with more enthusiasm in commentary circles than parenting stories are.

In a Guardian/ICM poll on attitudes to giving birth, it seems that most respondents wanted to `get rich and have fun rather than start a family'. While these attitudes are probably a contributing factor to declining birth rates, what hasn't been established is why child-rearing has lost its appeal in recent years. It is worth remembering that until recently, parenting established individuals as adults to be taken seriously. The problem today is that nobody in authority takes adults very seriously - particularly on the very issue of how to raise their children.

It is often automatically assumed that parents will make a bad job of socialising their children, thus leading to future generations of delinquents with `low self-esteem' issues. Previously, such ideas were targeted at the poorest sections in society; now they are applied to any aspiring parent, regardless of social background. The upshot here is that some individuals have internalised notions that they're naturally unfit parents. In a recent set of interviews in the Guardian, some respondents admitted that for years they considered themselves `incapable' of raising a family. Perhaps what some commentators found so appalling about both the Rashbrooks and the pre-teen mum case is their refusal to stick to today's self-doubting and self-loathing script.

At no other time in history has parenting been held in such low regard. In fact, it's hard to find any positive discussions surrounding parenthood. Although there are practical concerns regarding Europe's declining fertility rate, there are bigger concerns that useless people will only raise gormless children. As humans are constantly re-cast as a troublesome burden to society, the state and environment, it only makes sense to argue for having fewer children, not more. To do otherwise, it seems, is just plain irresponsible.

Source



THE TRANS FAT BEATUP

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) sued fast food purveyor KFC this week claiming the food chain's use of cooking oil containing trans fats is unhealthy. Although KFC said the lawsuit was frivolous and plans to fight it in court, it's not clear that KFC understands how frivolous the lawsuit really is.

In its lawsuit, CSPI asked a Kentucky judge to order KFC to use other types of cooking oils and to make sure customers know how much trans fats KFC's food contains. CSPI's lawsuit alleges that trans fats - vegetable oils that have been altered to be firm at room temperature - increase the risk of heart disease.

In announcing that KFC would fight the lawsuit, a company spokesperson said that KFC is looking at using other types of oil for cooking, but it is committed to maintaining "KFC's unique taste and flavor," according to the Associated Press. But there's no need for KFC to switch cooking oils because the entire trans fat scare is based on junk science. While there are studies that purport to link trans fats with heart disease, when you look at the data and methodology behind the studies, their claims rapidly fall apart.

Studies indicate that consumption of trans fats temporarily elevate levels of so-called "bad" cholesterol and temporarily lower levels of so-called "good cholesterol." This simple blood chemistry is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the significance of the temporary change in blood cholesterol levels. Trans fat alarmists would have you believe that these transient blood chemistry changes increase your chances of having a heart attack. The available scientific data, however, don't back up that assertion. A number of studies of human populations have attempted to statistically associate consumption of trans fats with increased heart attack risk, but the only conclusion that can be fairly drawn from any of them is that, if there is a risk, it's too small to measure through standard epidemiologic methodology.

One of the major challenges for researchers is to tease out the potential impacts of trans fats from other dietary, lifestyle and genetic factors that might be relevant to heart disease. So far, it's been an impossible task. The failure of human studies to support the alarmism was amply illustrated a few years ago when the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine (IOM) jumped on the trans fat alarmist bandwagon. While touting studies showing that trans fats temporarily altered blood chemistry, the IOM glaringly did not cite any studies showing that trans fats posed any real risk to real people.

Despite the absence of real world evidence that trans fats are dangerous, the alarmism continues. There are at least two explanations for this phenomenon. First, it's been clear to the dietary research community for years - although they've been reluctant to share this information with the public - that the scare over dietary fat intake has been over-hyped. The final nail in the coffin of dietary fat hysteria came earlier this year when a major study concluded that low-fat diets provide no demonstrable health benefits over high-fat diets. So the trans fat scare constitutes a whole new way for researchers to scare the public about fat and to keep their government grants coming.

Second, the trans fat scare is a great new rationale for food manufacturers to introduce new and, perhaps, more expensive products that they market as "good for you." Food companies learned long ago that there's more profit in reformulating and marketing new and "healthier" products rather than trying to fight the bad science wielded by the well-funded, well-entrenched and essentially unaccountable public health bureaucracy.

Of course, the trans fat scare doesn't work for every company in the food industry. Some can't reformulate. Several years ago due to pressure from CSPI, McDonald's announced that it would switch cooking oils to eliminate trans fats. But CSPI wound up suing the company after McDonalds could not find a substitute cooking oil that met its standards.

There are two other facts to consider as you are bombarded with media reports and food company advertising about the alleged dangers of trans fats. Thirty years ago, the diet police scared us away from animal fat-based butter and began singing the praises of what they said was a healthier alternative, trans fat-based margarine. Now, the diet police have done an about-face and want to scare us away from those same trans fats - all the while omitting mention that their butter scare was bogus from the get-go. So what exactly would be the basis for trusting the alarmists this time around?

Also worth considering is the fact that CSPI has been in the business of scaring people about the food they eat for more than 30 years. From labeling Fettucine Alfredo as "heart attack on a plate" to claiming that fat substitute olestra might make truck drivers sick enough to lose control of their vehicles while driving, to claiming caffeinated beverages cause miscarriages, CSPI has been and remains on the cutting edge of dietary absurdity.

It's unfortunate that KFC has to waste its time and money defending itself from CSPI's groundless lawsuit. On the other hand, KFC has a good opportunity to expose not only the trans fat myth but also CSPI's antics in a court of law. Let's hope KFC doesn't chicken out.

Source



Individual responsibility frowned on in the UK

UK home secretary John Reid has backpedalled on an antisocial behaviour initiative with the slogan: `Don't moan, take action - it's your street too.' The leaked initiative was greeted with howls of derision, and protests that Reid was apparently asking the public to deal with bad behaviour. `How dare you blame us for rising crime', blustered the Daily Express. David Davis, shadow home secretary, said it was `brazen beyond belief for the government to turn around and try to shift responsibility on to the shoulders of the public'.

But that was the last problem with the initiative-that-wasn't. We do indeed need a society where people are prepared to pitch in and deal with bad behaviour. We should all take more responsibility for what goes on around us - not because we owe it to Reid, but because we owe it to ourselves as citizens. Everybody will have seen intelligent adults paralysed by a child's tantrum, a group of rowdy teenagers, or an unstable individual. A minor incident, which in the past would have been dealt with swiftly by passers-by, now causes a blockage in city life.

Everybody has their stories. The other day I saw a six-year-old kicking a ball against a woman's trolley. Everybody froze and watched, apparently wanting to say something but not wanting to expose themselves. Eventually the boy got bored and moved on. People breathed a sigh of relief: emergency over. A child holding adults to ransom is a sure sign of individual and collective paralysis.

It turns out that public action is the last thing Reid wanted, though. It wasn't so much, `don't moan, take action', as `take action by moaning'. Home Office officials clarified Reid's position. `[He] wants people to moan and complain to the police and local councils about anti-social behaviour because that's the only way things will change', said one. Another added: `The idea that we are asking neighbourhoods or local people to act on their own is complete nonsense.'

Why is the idea of local people `acting on their own' so terrible? Individuals and communities taking matters into their own hands is seen as a dangerous business, with the whiff of lynch mobs and vigilantism. `We have never encouraged people to be vigilantes and never would do so', said Louise Casey, the prime minister's Respect chief. Under New Labour, it seems that `vigilante' has come to mean anybody who acts without the sanction of officialdom. Such is the government's distrust of people that any kind of independent action can be tarnished with the bogey word of vigilantism.

But why shouldn't groups of people establish basic norms of behaviour? People are reluctant to put themselves forward now because they fear that nobody will back them up. Those who do stand up appear isolated and insecure, like the person who pleads on a crowded Tube train `Could you please move down inside the carriage?' in a squeaky and artificial voice. They don't feel that their reasonable request is backed up by those around them, so they are effectively a moaner, not a sensible individual speaking out with authority.

Those who pursue the government's route of community action end up as moaners and grassers - not necessarily through any fault of their own, but because that is the logic of the situation. Elaine Holland, a mother from an estate in Plymouth, is currently the government's shining example of a community activist. She appealed for ASBOs against a gang that was terrorising her estate, and eventually got the gang split up and moved on. In private, people on the estate said that something had to be done, but in public she was shunned and called a grass.

Perhaps they labelled her a grass because they sensed that this was something the community should deal with for itself, even though the community was unable to play that role. In the past, this gang might have been dealt with by firm words or by somebody giving the ringleader a slap. Now the estate was paralysed, and the woman who did do something ended up disempowering and isolating herself. Individuals aren't to blame here - the problem is today's cultural framework and the broader assumptions about our responsibilities to others.

We are now always encouraged to run to a third party, be it the courts or the local council, to resolve differences with noisy neighbours, local naughty kids or other forms of irritating behaviour. Yet running to an outside body only takes power away from the individuals concerned, because it hands responsibility over to some apparently benign outsider. And introducing a third party tends to exacerbate community tensions rather than resolve them; it legalises spats and ups the ante between people who can't see eye to eye. So we'd be better not to moan about anti-social behaviour, and not to grass either. Instead we should try to deal with everyday misdemeanours for ourselves.

Source