"Feeling stressed? Then blame your mother"

[WorkingBling]

Honestly. I want to scream. This is a headline in The Times today. The story is ahead of a programme called "countdown to life" which looks at affect of what mothers do on unborn children.

I don't dispute the findings - eg that women being stressed affects the baby. But I am so tired of women being blamed for everything. The example is women caught in a terrible storm in Canada and the corresponding stress they felt and how it affected the babies. Great. But unless you plan to keep women in a coma, allowing them to wake only for food and exercise (carefully regulated, obviously), what do you think you are going to do to fix this? The article rather half heartedly talks about how it shows how important it is to identify women who need more emotional and mental support when pregnant blah blah blah. But what about the women whose partner walks out when he finds out she's pregnant? Or the one who is self employed and needs to earn money in a stressful job yo feed the baby and her family? Or the one who suffers great personal tragedy while pregnant? Or even just the one who is naturally highly strung and gets stressed being asked what she wants to drink?!

Why is so much scientific research being done that seems to g designed to arrack women? Let's research how babies can be supported in their first 3 years so that they all get equal chances.

I am really angry right now n

You know, if that study had resulted in a headline like 'You better be nice to pregnant women' and, I dunno, better/longer maternity leave or free fruit and veg or something (the article is behind a paywall, but diet is also mentioned in the preamble), that'd be cool. But it doesn't, does it? Much cheaper and satisfying to just blame the women.

And then when someone says, hold on, women aren't like that & etc there's a bit of a problem.

Well quite. They still haven't found the bit in women's brains that likes being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen making sammiches AFAIK.

And then there was all that noise about hunter/gatherer societies and men therefore being all dominant. Until they found a female hunter (in Norway?). And then there was much beard-stroking and head-scratching and back-tracking.

Science is a male preserve, and has been for centuries. So we start off with a male perspective from a point in history that was deeply patriarchal. Some fantastic scientists, who happened to be female, broke through that mould, however they did so within certain social parameters.

There are some wonderful contemporary female scientists such as Cordelia Fine and Gia Milinovich who are breaking the mould. But, as usual, it takes time to convince the patriarchy we are right (without nagging).

lol @ "without nagging"

True though isn't it

Can I take you all with me when we cover evopsych bollocks?

I'm not sure I can be polite about it.

Obviously there's not going to be a "likes spending time in the kitchen" area of the brain.

I think there's more and more women scientists. Hopefully it will become more balanced in the future.

Only if we get super shiny PlaysPosse badges.

Anyone watching the show? Too scared to as crackers with pregnancy anxiety already.... saw listing in radiotimes and googled Suzanne king study it referred to. Concluded not to worry as a. Interviewed 34 kids which even I know is not many. B. Apaz issue is objective stress not subjective - objectively I've just been a muppet suffering with subjective madness not actual ice storm. C. Main impact autistic like behaviours which could get from dad and grand dad anyway, asthma which could get from granny and obesity which could get from most of my family so decided to Ignore it.... Any other scary messages need to consider?!

It's a stupid headline for lots of reasons, but it is the headline, not the science that is at fault here. I don't agree that the science "blames women".

Hm, I'm torn on this subject.

I think the science is fascinating - I had a premature baby and it was amazing to be a witness to him having a personality all of his own (which has not changed in 11+ years ) even when he was not even meant to be here for another 10 weeks, so clearly what goes on in utero is very likely to have a potentially profound effect on the unborn child.

However, how this can be prevented to be used as yet another big stick to beat woman with I really don't know .

My mother was born in 1941 and to this day my father (b1933) blames her periods of low mood and tearfulness with emotional lability on the fact that she was a 'war baby' and that her mother was profoundly 'stressed' while pregnancy (understandably). That may or may not be the case, but it's always used to 'show her' that she is somehow 'defective' - not my dad's words, but v clearly implied (whereas he is of course perfect in every way… ).

Still, the research is fascinating - I feel I am letting the sisterhood down by finding this interesting.

Obviously there's not going to be a "likes spending time in the kitchen" area of the brain.

Well no. But that's at the heart of all the ladybrain science, isn't it? They may dress it up as 'emotive processing', 'sensitivity' and 'multi-tasking', but they're starting from a position of a certain conclusion and setting out to prove it, not the other way round.

Male-centrism in science goes all the way from women's heart attack symptoms going unrecognised for aaages, to medicines being tested on men as women are so damned hormonal and unreliable, leaving women with less than optimal drugs. Then there's that reviewer who told female researchers to get a man on their paper. There's a long way to go IMO.

I've been watching the program & ranting at DH. Its just a long list of things you must not do when pregnant - eat this, don't eat that, do this exercise, avoid this chemical & above all DON'T GET STRESSED! Not following the advice results in dire lifelong consequences for your unborn child. The pregnant woman is blamed for everything and her needs are completely overlooked.

I disagree that the science is not at fault, the focus is entirely on the wellbeing of the foetus with little consideration of the practical consequences of the conclusions of the studies.

I don't think I could bear to watch that program tbh.

well no, but that's the heart of the ladybrain sciences

Male-centrism in science goes all the way from women's heart attack symptoms going unrecognised for aaages, to medicines being tested on men as women are so damned hormonal and unreliable, leaving women with less than optimal drugs

I totally agree with your second point. Actually the men were always white as well - more effort is going in researching in more diverse populations than just white men.

For too long there was a view that if something helped/effected white men it must do exactly the same in everybody else.

Research is firmly based on those who are most likely to be able to afford said fruits of the research - white, male, middle-class people, natch

Oh, and they cannot be too old either (next to no research on the effect of statins in the over-75s for instance)

NiNo, of course you can.

You'll have to polish your evil stare though

This has all been interesting. It was definitely the headline that infuriated me. But I think the man-centric nature of science is a problem. Where is the research in the negative impact on a child of an absent or elusive father figure? Or the reality of what happens to children whose fathers abuse their mothers? Or even just whether children with fathers who cuddle them more than xx hours per week are smarter/happier/better adjusted?! No one seems interested in the effect of men's behaviours on children.

And yy to the posters pointing out lack of research into older dads or sick dads or dads who take lots of drugs!

Also, it's all very well funding research that proved stress is a problem. But what about the research to mitigate the problem? Never mind emotional support for women what can you do for th child? I am all for emotional support for women but when the stress cannot be controlled (eg the ice storm women in his example) what can be done to help those children? Stop telling women how much harm we do and start offering some goddam solutions (that don't require us to be policed!!)

Where is the research in the negative impact on a child of an absent or elusive father figure

You are right the headline is awful. I think anger is better directed at the media for only focusing on stories where women have an effect on children.

There actually is quite a bit of research into the impact of fathers on their children. For example it appears that girls who grow up in a home with an absent father seem to start their periods earlier.
Researchers are interested in finding out why this happens.

There is actually a lot of information on how the fathers age, weight, drug taking etc before pregnancy effects the child. It just isn't well reported.

Where is the research in the negative impact on a child of an absent or elusive father figure?

You might want to be careful what you wish for. I could imagine the results of that, if they showed a negative impact, being used as a rod to beat mothers who are single by choice, lesbian parents or mothers who wanted to leave a relationship.

Ha! You might be right about that Lass.

I'm not coming with you to evopsycho stuff Plays. I might turn psycho ...

Words like "sensitive" and "multitasking" and "nuturing" and "caring" and "emotional" makes me feel quite murderous.

My problem with this is the reporting. Science journalism in this country is just WOEFUL. The headline could have been "Pregnant women should be evacuated first in the event of natural disaster" - because that is actually a conclusion the researchers draw. After all, it's a bit unreasonable to suggest that anyone going through a moderate to large-scale natural disaster can just 'sit back and chill' about it. In fact, that seems to have been the very reason these researchers chose to work on this - that it would be an unambiguous stressor. It could also have been reported in a way that put more onus on men or female partners to provide support.