Today
Jakarta
- 31 °C
Other Publications
Ideology, childbirth and child rearing
Inaya Rakhmani , Jakarta | Mon, 08/18/2008 11:29 AM | Opinion
It's perhaps safe to say that everything, and I mean everything, that is related to human beings is ideological. From the more complex things in life that we are used to debating -- religion, gender construction, human rights -- to day-to-day concepts. As a woman in my ninth month of pregnancy, I am exposed to (or have exposed myself to) the ideologies of childbearing and rearing.
I find it very interesting, and somewhat mind-boggling, that even the most natural processes in life are matters of intense interest. Newspapers are riddled with arguments that breast-feeding is the best and no matter how advanced, formula milk will never be an equal substitute for Mother Nature's gift.
It seems like a logical argument, especially considering the trend in women's rights toward social self-actualization (read: working) which has led most mothers to opt for formula over breast-feeding because it frees them from the obligation to breast-feed.
But the argument also ignores the fact that some women cannot produce breast milk. It wasn't their own choice, but a physical barrier. It seems ignorant at best and cruel at worst to advocate breast milk as the best source of nutrition for babies. Please, just go ahead and rub the salt in their wounds.
The same goes for the choice of natural birth versus C-section. I've realized that Indonesian newspapers are currently advocating for natural births over C-sections because several hospitals in Jakarta have an 80 percent C-section rate. Koran Tempo newspaper has quoted research that babies delivered by C-section are not as healthy as those born naturally. Lung development, advantageous bacteria from vaginal deliveries, which help the baby's digestive system -- you name it.
It seems similar to the stance for breast milk over formula. Because of the tendency of pregnant women to choose C-sections over natural births for nonmedical personal and/or social reasons (e.g., fear of pain, fear of losing vaginal elasticity, etc.), the movement uses guilt to pressure women to opt for the natural way.
Again, a logical argument. But what about women who have medical complications and have to have a C-section because they had no other choice? Not only have they suffered a physical complication that led to their having surgery, but also they are reminded that their physical limitations deprived their babies of certain advantages that the children of most "able women" receive.
Again, ignorant or cruel?
The list goes on to include working mothers or stay-at-home mothers, both with their pros and cons and partial ideological arguments. Involved fathers or uninvolved fathers, to hire a nanny or not hire a nanny, etc. All of these could be argued otherwise but all have a single hegemonic idea, which is consistently being advocated through the media nowadays.
I have my personal choices which are irrelevant here, but I do want to share one thing: I am in favor of us being smart parents. That we, as rational, educated and responsible human beings who have chosen to bring little people to this world, should equip ourselves with the knowledge necessary to bear and rear a child.
It is a responsibility we took on the day we decided to have offspring -- to make rational and informed decisions, relieving society of the responsibility to remind us of the facts that contradict our selfish choices.
It is not the sole responsibility of women just because we're the ones who get pregnant; it is the responsibility of all parents in the term's broadest meaning (including fathers, grandparents, aunts and uncles and friends actively involved in the child's primary environment) to seek information about what is best for their circumstances.
If we succeed to do this, there will be no need for ideological hegemony, the bombarding of a partial, usually singular argument. We will receive balanced information on both sides, the pros and cons of each choice. Parents who had to choose formula milk, C-section, go back to work (or stay at home) won't have to be reminded of the disadvantages of their choices -- because they already know.
After all, everything in life is choice. The ones who will truly enjoy the fruits of their labor are the ones who did the hard work. It is ridiculous that we would think we are wiser than those who had to make the choices and live with the consequences. But then again, this is assuming that they have done their jobs in finding out what is essential. So the question becomes: Have we done enough to deserve a child?
Inaya Rakhmani is an associate lecturer at the Department of Communications at the University of Indonesia. She can be reached at inaya_rakhmani@yahoo.com.
John Hargreaves (not verified) — Tue, 08/19/2008 - 1:19pm
On one hand you say that everyone should "equip themselves with the knowledge necessary to bear and rear a child." On the other hand you criticise the media for providing the very information that will enable people to make rational and informed decisions.
You even say that the media are being ignorant and cruel for reminding us of the benefits of breast feeding.
In fact, health advice in the media is helpful and informative.
We are often reminded, for example, that exercise, such as running, is good for our health and sets a good example for our children.
Of course, some people are physically unable to run and others choose not to exercise because they have other commitments which they consider more important.
But one cannot expect newspapers and magazines to put disclaimers in every article saying "of course, if you choose not to exercise for some reason, there is no need for you to feel guilty about it." That would be pointless condescension.
The media supply helpful information. It is up to us to decide how that information influences our lifestyle in our circumstances.
Nobody is saying that mothers should go to jail for feeding their babies formula milk or that distributors should face the firing squad for selling the harmful white powder. They are only pointing out that the decision to use formula milk rather than breast milk is not cost-free.
What you should perhaps emphasise is that women whose physical or economic circumstances prevent them from breast-feeding deserve more sympathy and help.
And mothers who are prevented from breast feeding by social inhibition especially deserve support and encouragement to enable them to breast feed.
The sad truth is that there is a de facto taboo on breast feeding in mosques, TV studios, upmarket shopping malls and other places that establish models of desirable etiquette in modern society. That taboo is spreading across cities and even into rural areas, discouraging mothers from breast feeding anytime, anywhere, as they should be able to do by natural right. It is that problem, the subservience of nurture to a culture of oppression and conspicuous consumption, that really needs attention from the media, and from all concerned people.