I expect most of us inherited or learned certain attitudes about food from our families. I know that was the case with me. Growing up, food was a central theme in our holiday gatherings, and meals were was brought the family together. As a young child, living on a large property in northern Virginia, I was lucky to have parents who decided to plant and tend a large garden. Every year, they'd pay a local farmer to bring his tractor over and till the land so we could plant all kinds of vegetables. We spent many a day or afternoon in the garden together, tending and watering our plants.
When it was time for the corn, green beans, peas, eggplant, tomato, pumpkins, etc., we'd have a big gathering and we'd eat that food for months. Similarly, we had a lot of wild blackberries growing on our land, and I used to go pick a large bowlful to take back to my mother, who'd make a blackberry pie out of them.
In short, my family loved food! I think at that period of time, it was a healthy relationship, because we worked so hard planting and growing it, and we definitely ate lots of fresh vegetables. After we moved to a new house in a new subdivision, and my parents were both working full time, my family's love of food quickly became unhealthy.
They eat when they are depressed, and they eat when they are happy. To them, food is a comfort, and it is a reward. These are attitudes which contributed to my own unhealthy attitudes towards food as an adolescent who was overweight. It wasn't until I moved out as a young adult and began buying and cooking food for myself that I began examining my own feelings about food. I came to believe that food, itself, should be neither a positive or a negative influence, but simply neutral. It shouldn't be used as a punishment ("You better eat your peas if you want ice cream!") and it shouldn't be a reward ("Wow, I lost ten pounds. Let's celebrate with cheesecake!"). Both can easily lead to dysfunctional attitudes towards food.
Food should not be used as a substitute for other things either, like emotional comfort. Of course, everyone does this from time to time, but making a habit of it does not seem healthy to me. Instead, I remind myself that just because I'm going to the mall or a movie, it does not require me to eat the most fattening, unhealthy food to go along with the entertainment. I always try to keep some sort of border in my mind which says, food is food, and fun is fun!
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Cultural Perspectives on Menopause
Yes, I know. It's coming eventually. That time in my life when monthly menstruation is a thing of the past, and where birth control ceases to be a concern. Yay! Right?
Well, it seems that this period (hehe) of a woman's life is viewed in pretty negative terms by many Western women. Many seem to feel that it marks the end of their "productive" lives as mothers, and that they are old and washed up. Useless.
According to Dr. Dixie Mills (2007), however, this prejudiced view of menopausal women stems from Sigmund Freud's male-dominant perspective, which underpins a great deal of Western thought and medicine. For example, whereas many in our society place child-bearing as the litmus test of a woman's social and biological productivity, the Japanese and Mayan peoples believe that menopause frees women from their greatest burden and enables them to become "wise women," living repositories of family history and a valuable resource.
Mills (2007) wrote, "Menopause in Japan, or konenki, is thought to begin in the early 40’s and last until around 60 years of age. . .Literally translated, ko means “renewal and regeneration,” nen means “year” or “years,” and ki means “season” or “energy.” While translated into English as “menopause,” konenki connotes a much lengthier, gradual transition where the end of periods is just one contributing feature."
That is a fundamentally different viewpoint than what many Westerners hold. Whereas many of us see menopause as a time of declining importance and increasing irrelevancy, the Japanese see it is a time when one is entering her zenith. Age and experience are much respected among the Japanese (and Mayan) culture, and I believe that this is probably the biggest reason why women there do not fear menopause or want to avoid it: they are honored for their position. In the U.S., the message that is constantly fed to women is that if you aren't young and beautiful, you are unimportant. It seems that living in such a facile society as ours, it is going to be particularly galling for the Baby Boomers, who once despised the older "establishment" to be faced with their own decline.
For myself, I ascribe to the ideals which many Celtic pagans and American Natives believed: that to be female is to be part of a circle, and a cycle, marked by three stages. These are maiden, mother, and crone. Each stage holds its own importance to the tribe, and is valuable. I'm in the "mother" stage now, but I look forward to the days when as a crone, I can devote my energies more fully to my surround community, as well as to providing whatever guidance or help to my adult son (and eventually his family) as I can.
Source:
Mills, D. (2007). Woman to woman: menopause and perimenopause. Retrieved on October 18, 2008 from http://www.womentowomen.com/menopause/menopauseacrosscultures.aspx
Well, it seems that this period (hehe) of a woman's life is viewed in pretty negative terms by many Western women. Many seem to feel that it marks the end of their "productive" lives as mothers, and that they are old and washed up. Useless.
According to Dr. Dixie Mills (2007), however, this prejudiced view of menopausal women stems from Sigmund Freud's male-dominant perspective, which underpins a great deal of Western thought and medicine. For example, whereas many in our society place child-bearing as the litmus test of a woman's social and biological productivity, the Japanese and Mayan peoples believe that menopause frees women from their greatest burden and enables them to become "wise women," living repositories of family history and a valuable resource.
Mills (2007) wrote, "Menopause in Japan, or konenki, is thought to begin in the early 40’s and last until around 60 years of age. . .Literally translated, ko means “renewal and regeneration,” nen means “year” or “years,” and ki means “season” or “energy.” While translated into English as “menopause,” konenki connotes a much lengthier, gradual transition where the end of periods is just one contributing feature."
That is a fundamentally different viewpoint than what many Westerners hold. Whereas many of us see menopause as a time of declining importance and increasing irrelevancy, the Japanese see it is a time when one is entering her zenith. Age and experience are much respected among the Japanese (and Mayan) culture, and I believe that this is probably the biggest reason why women there do not fear menopause or want to avoid it: they are honored for their position. In the U.S., the message that is constantly fed to women is that if you aren't young and beautiful, you are unimportant. It seems that living in such a facile society as ours, it is going to be particularly galling for the Baby Boomers, who once despised the older "establishment" to be faced with their own decline.
For myself, I ascribe to the ideals which many Celtic pagans and American Natives believed: that to be female is to be part of a circle, and a cycle, marked by three stages. These are maiden, mother, and crone. Each stage holds its own importance to the tribe, and is valuable. I'm in the "mother" stage now, but I look forward to the days when as a crone, I can devote my energies more fully to my surround community, as well as to providing whatever guidance or help to my adult son (and eventually his family) as I can.
Source:
Mills, D. (2007). Woman to woman: menopause and perimenopause. Retrieved on October 18, 2008 from http://www.womentowomen.com/menopause/menopauseacrosscultures.aspx
Friday, October 10, 2008
Plague as Punishment
25 And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, 26 And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, 27 When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment. 28 For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole. 29 And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague. (Gospel of Mark, Chapter V)
I think that the above picture is very descriptive of how many people living with sexually transmitted diseases are ostracized by the surrounding community, and most especially how women tend to be especially vulnerable to such treatment. STDs such as herpes and syphilis carry with them a social stigma in many countries, even the western and industrialized ones. But the worst disease by far--that is the most damaging, the most isolating, and devastating--is HIV/Aids.
It seems to me that if there was ever a "perfect" weapon of propaganda and bigotry to have been derived from natural causes, HIV is it. Here we have a virus which is transmitted primarily by sexual contact making its debut in the US via homosexual unions. And! Drug users also spread it! And! It's deadly! Wow, the religious zealots were salivating over that one. I remember as a child in the early 80's, watching news casts about this mysterious and dangerous virus, and hearing my parents and my pastor at church refer to it as "judgment from God on the gays."
I had no idea then what "gay" meant, but I do remember thinking how horrible it was that the same Jesus I was being told to trust and who supposedly loved everybody was busy making people sick so they could die, because God was angry. I think it was at that point I learned to be afraid of God.
The fact that my parents, and my pastor, like so many religious people, seized upon a travesty, and the ruination of so many lives as fodder for some sort of morally smug superiority contest was one of many things which ultimately turned me off to their particular brand of faith. I grew up and was able to make the connections between the uncomprehending and dumb nature of an opportunistic virus and the lack of relevancy this had to any morals.
Because the truth is, if HIV/Aids were punishment, than innocents would never contract it. If it was a divine retribution for men loving men, or women other women, or drug addicts seeking their addiction, then people who had blood transfusions prior to screening for legitimate medical conditions would not have contracted it. Babies would not catch it in vitro from their mothers, or later on from breastfeeding. Chaste wives would not get it from their infected husbands.
But the hell of it is, all of these types of people have contracted it, and more are infected every day. During a heated debate on this issue, I once had the ironic pleasure of pointing out to my mother that her c-section (for my younger sister) in 1982, resulting in a blood transfusion, could have led to her contracting a "gay man's plague," despite her adherence to her faith. Not that I wanted that to happen to her, but I thought and still think that those who would look down on people who have HIV/Aids as being somehow cursed by God need to reexamine their theology. My own opinion...well, I think it is the one judging who is really "cursed." They are cursed because they reject the humanity of others for the sake of maintaining a pretense of righteousness.
Don't know about others, but in my edition of the Bible, that type of behavior was always associated with Phariseeism--a serious condition of the spirit, causing hardening of the heart, and potentially deadly to the soul.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
American Obstetrical Rites
Many birth choice advocates, myself included, like to talk about the differences between high-intervention, medicalized childbirth versus low-intervention, low-tech childbirth. There are benefits and drawbacks to both, but generally speaking, when we say that the low-intervention model of childbirth is "safer" according to the body of evidence, we are speaking about low-risk women.
There are many obstetricians (who are often pro-intervention) who will state that the only low-risk pregnancy is one diagnosed in hindsight--that is, after the mother has given birth safely without any problems. This is a view which I do not agree with, and one which largely ignores the entire point of prenatal care: that of diagnosing and treating certain conditions before the onset of labor.
There is one noted author and birth choice advocate, Robbie Davis-Floyd, P.h.D., who has written several articles and books on the culture of medicalized childbirth in our society. One such article, The Rituals of American Hospital Birth, is based upon the premise that every society, every culture had a set of rites built around birth (along with other major life effects, like marriage, or death). Dr. Davis-Floyd is an anthropologist at the University of Texas at Austin, and has studied the culture of hospital birth in our society in depth.
She writes, "Rites of passage generally consist of three stages, originally outlined by van Gennep: (1) separation of the individuals from their preceding social state; (2) a period of transition in which they are neither one thing nor the other; and (3) an integration phase, in which, through various rites of incorporation, they are absorbed into their new social state" (1994).
Pregnancy, then, is one long practice in separation, which is symbolized by how a pregnant woman eats, drinks, and behaves differently from her peers. Furthermore, her reduction from a fully independent and autonomous individual to that of a semi-dependent who is deemed by society, her peers, and her physician to require instruction and care in order to protect herself and her baby from the vagaries of the reproductive process, also emphasizes her new status as being set apart from others (Davis-Floyd, 1994).
The integration Davis-Floyd speaks of includes the intense rites practiced in the medicalization of labor and delivery. Floyd states, "Routine obstetric procedures are highly symbolic. For example, to be seated in a wheelchair upon entering the hospital, as many laboring women are, is to receive through their bodies the symbolic message that they are disabled; to then be put to bed is to receive the symbolic message that they are sick" (1994). How is this important? Because this message emphasizes the belief that the woman is dependent upon her physician and the hospital (institution) and its goodwill, for her health and wellbeing. This message is repeated through the administration of gratuitous I.V., continuous fetal monitoring leads being attached (either external or internal), blood pressure cuffs, and even the epidural. It is as if, and Floyd points this out, that just as her baby is dependent upon the umbilical cord for life and health, she is just as attached through these various "umbilical cords" to the institution for her life.
Davis-Floyd continues this analogy in her thoughtful and insightful article, and it is one of the reasons why I have come to practically idolize her. I firmly believe that her writings should be required reading for any medical student wishing to specialize in obstetrics. Pregnant women who read it may come to view many "necessary" interventions in a very different light (and certainly be more informed for the experience than with What to Expect when You're Expecting).
Personally, I admire any author who can ream the obstetric field so thoroughly and with such flawless logic, without degenerating into sarcasm, histrionics, or other emotion-based tactics.
You know, the kind of tactics many (cough-choke, don'tyoumeanmost?) OBs use to "motivate" women to do their bidding?
Davis-Floyd, Robbie. (1994). The Rituals of Hospital Birth. In Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology, 8th ed. (pp. 323-340). Retrieved on October 4, 2008 from http://www.davis-floyd.com/ShowPage.asp?id=158
There are many obstetricians (who are often pro-intervention) who will state that the only low-risk pregnancy is one diagnosed in hindsight--that is, after the mother has given birth safely without any problems. This is a view which I do not agree with, and one which largely ignores the entire point of prenatal care: that of diagnosing and treating certain conditions before the onset of labor.
There is one noted author and birth choice advocate, Robbie Davis-Floyd, P.h.D., who has written several articles and books on the culture of medicalized childbirth in our society. One such article, The Rituals of American Hospital Birth, is based upon the premise that every society, every culture had a set of rites built around birth (along with other major life effects, like marriage, or death). Dr. Davis-Floyd is an anthropologist at the University of Texas at Austin, and has studied the culture of hospital birth in our society in depth.
She writes, "Rites of passage generally consist of three stages, originally outlined by van Gennep: (1) separation of the individuals from their preceding social state; (2) a period of transition in which they are neither one thing nor the other; and (3) an integration phase, in which, through various rites of incorporation, they are absorbed into their new social state" (1994).
Pregnancy, then, is one long practice in separation, which is symbolized by how a pregnant woman eats, drinks, and behaves differently from her peers. Furthermore, her reduction from a fully independent and autonomous individual to that of a semi-dependent who is deemed by society, her peers, and her physician to require instruction and care in order to protect herself and her baby from the vagaries of the reproductive process, also emphasizes her new status as being set apart from others (Davis-Floyd, 1994).
The integration Davis-Floyd speaks of includes the intense rites practiced in the medicalization of labor and delivery. Floyd states, "Routine obstetric procedures are highly symbolic. For example, to be seated in a wheelchair upon entering the hospital, as many laboring women are, is to receive through their bodies the symbolic message that they are disabled; to then be put to bed is to receive the symbolic message that they are sick" (1994). How is this important? Because this message emphasizes the belief that the woman is dependent upon her physician and the hospital (institution) and its goodwill, for her health and wellbeing. This message is repeated through the administration of gratuitous I.V., continuous fetal monitoring leads being attached (either external or internal), blood pressure cuffs, and even the epidural. It is as if, and Floyd points this out, that just as her baby is dependent upon the umbilical cord for life and health, she is just as attached through these various "umbilical cords" to the institution for her life.
Davis-Floyd continues this analogy in her thoughtful and insightful article, and it is one of the reasons why I have come to practically idolize her. I firmly believe that her writings should be required reading for any medical student wishing to specialize in obstetrics. Pregnant women who read it may come to view many "necessary" interventions in a very different light (and certainly be more informed for the experience than with What to Expect when You're Expecting).
Personally, I admire any author who can ream the obstetric field so thoroughly and with such flawless logic, without degenerating into sarcasm, histrionics, or other emotion-based tactics.
You know, the kind of tactics many (cough-choke, don'tyoumeanmost?) OBs use to "motivate" women to do their bidding?
Davis-Floyd, Robbie. (1994). The Rituals of Hospital Birth. In Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology, 8th ed. (pp. 323-340). Retrieved on October 4, 2008 from http://www.davis-floyd.com/ShowPage.asp?id=158
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
