Current events lately are hideous. Sometimes there's just so much bad stuff that it feels like there will never be good news again. Not everything is super important, some things that come up are somewhat trivial in the grand scheme of things, but how things are presented in the news/media bothers me especially. There were three things that came up that bothered me in particular.
First off, the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti are horrific (as are the narratives used to justify the murders), as are the killings of non-white people by ICE that are getting considerably less coverage -- Keith Porter, Parady La, Heber Sanchaz Dominguez, Victor Manuel Diaz, Luis Beltran Yanez-Cruz, Luis Gustavo Nunez Caceres, and Geraldo Lunas Campos (to be honest, I didn't know there were so many until today, and I know nothing of the circumstances, which is also upsetting). The horror of the widely-available videos showing just how shocking these deaths are is devastating.
It does bother me, though, that Renee Good's life is often presented as Mother first. She was a 37 year old mother. She was mother and a poet (in that order). It's especially tragic because they shot a mother. Renee Good was many things, and mother was just one of them. Does it make my heart hurt to think of her young son who she'd just dropped off at school? Absolutely. Is it an important part of her? Absolutely. But to make it the FIRST thing, and a large reason why her death is so tragic... it makes me wonder if someone who was not a mother would garner as much attention, or sympathy. The tragedy is not what has me irritated, because it is a tragedy, it's the media's constant use of "mother" as "worthy." You rarely hear men described first as "father." It does happen, but women are more often pigeonholed into Mother First.
Second, my guilty pleasure is my PEOPLE magazine. It comes in my mailbox and I enjoy all the shiny airbrushed people wearing fancy clothes (many of which I don't really know anymore). It helps me keep somewhat up to date with pop culture. You know who loves a celebrity pregnancy/birth? PEOPLE. ESPECIALLY if it's an IVF success story, or "miracle" birth to a 50 year old person, or whatever. So I was super irritated to have this in my mailbox over the weekend:
Arrrrgggghhhh. I mean, yay them, I'm so glad they had the baby they wanted so badly and after such difficult circumstances, but the phrase "miracle baby" should just be...disappeared. The idea of miracles granted haphazardly, which is quite painful for those who were skipped over for miracles, it just isn't great. Also, having several friends who never got a "rainbow baby" -- the term really makes it seem like that's the most likely outcome after a loss. These terms get bandied about, and they are of course not a problem for people who have experienced the miracle or the rainbow, but they highlight how invisible it can feel to be passed over and left in the dark. Or to find alternate rainbows that people don't always understand are just as meaningful. Sigh.
Lastly, I was listening to the January 16th episode of the New York Times' The Daily podcast, "An I.V.F. Mix-Up and an Impossible Choice." It was absolutely gripping and emotional. Buuut, the following statements were made:
"For millions of families, IVF is a modern medical miracle. But for a small number of parents, the largely unregulated field can go terribly wrong." (Michael Barbaro)
"It allows women to put off having kids until later in life. It allows women not to worry so much about the aging of their eggs. It allows people who have infertility for one reason or another, to conceive." (Sue Dominus)
So, the "terribly wrong" is swapped embryos. Not repeated failures, not I.V.F. not working, not reluctance to tell patients that it likely will never work for them. There is no mention of that at all. And sure, it "allows people who have infertility for one reason or another, to conceive" -- but it also fails those people just as much (if not more, because success rates are weird). And holy jeezum, to present it as a silver bullet for later childbearing (as if that's always a choice!) and not mention the insane cost, or toll on body and mind...it just screams irresponsible to me.
The story is fascinating, and truly heart-wrenching, but... and here's a spoiler...
The baby swap is possible. In part, because BOTH COUPLES WERE SUCCESSFUL IN THE SAME CYCLE. Also, they lived not too far from each other. And, they are all a part of their children's lives in this interesting extended family situation.
But, um, THAT'S a miracle. Two sets of embryos, two cycles, two full-term pregnancies, to older moms.
It wasn't presented that way, though. The facts behind the successful I.V.F. cycles were background, not the story. It drove me crazy enough to write The Daily an email, and to ask that they consider a story on women/couples who do I.V.F. and DON'T end up parents. I haven't gotten a response yet. Sigh.
This might be a Negative Nancy post, but these are the things that make me cranky. They don't ruin my day like they might have before, but they do really hit a nerve for me on how we talk about parenthood and miracles.
No comments:
Post a Comment