Yes, there is a background to this assertion: Over the weekend, when M was here, she was telling me about a cousin. He has been trying to have kids for over 6-7 years now with little success; now, she mentioned, his wife was undergoing some fertility treatment that was taking a toll on their finances. Insensitive that I am to issues that concern motherhood, I asked why couldn't they just adopt a kid. M, already furious I am sure over the fact that we don't have kids, said - "It is just not the same; don't you get it. People always want something that belongs to them. Why did you have to spend so much money and buy this house - because you want to own it."
Sensing the moment, I wisely shut my mouth but I really wanted to tell her this - babies are not like houses. Why did I buy a house? Because I looked at the various apartments/houses (15 or 20 of them) I wanted to rent, realized I didn't like any of them - either they were very expensive or had no natural air and light streaming in or were like match boxes. If anyway I had to spend the same amount of money to rent a house I didn't want to live in, it just seemed to make practical sense to me to put that money on a house I would love to live in. Do people really look at the choices available before they decide to have kids?
While I am on this rather taboo issue of motherhood (taboo for someone like me), I also happened to read this, and it has me a wee bit worried. To me, these tests seem to go along the same path as tests/beliefs that state women are natural mothers. What happens if a mother does not show any of these "natural" responses to her child? Or what happens when her reaction time is slightly slower than other "natural" mothers? Would she then be labelled as a not-so-good mom, and the kids taken away from her? I have issues with the assumptions this study throws up, that the responses observed are evidence for a "hard wired" and "natural" maternal instinct or that this explains "successful infant care"; this suggests if a mother doesn't fall into this prescribed pattern she in fact is not so successful in taking care of the infant. Also, is there any study to see how a woman who adopts reacts to her infant? Or women who do not have children at all?
When did 13 mothers become representative of almost half the world? Importantly, can someone tell me why a similar study is not done on fathers? Is it because it is already assumed that infant care and child rearing are more of a mother's responsibility?
To me the study seems rather flawed. If you work at building a bond with somebody - not just an infant - for 16 months, it is but natural that you would feel distressed at this person's pain rather than a stranger on the street. Ask yourself this: how many times have you been down in the dumps because a friend was going through bad times vs a colleague having tough times. What the hell - I would be more worried about someone hitting my car on the roads vs other cars being hit!!!
5 comments:
unmana] You are bang on. I am not against people having kids; but you are right it should be a "decision" really; Also, I wish this society realizes that not having kids also is a "decision", and not necessarily an abnormality.
Good post Emma. I could not agree more. Also the devastating effects of the various fertility treatments on the woman's body seems to be poorly understood. I recently met a woman who tried various kinds of treatment and has become bloated and obese thank to the treatments but still unable to get a baby. Those are the outward symptoms. I wonder what she has been going through mentally as well as what impact these treatments have on other parts of her body. I wish someone will research this and write about this. Like you, i also wonder why we can't adopt babies. there are several struggling in orphanages and possibly withering away.
[sukumar] I guess there is some prime motivational factor that makes people try so hard to have a baby; reasons that you and I can not really fathom.
I was recently discussing this with a couple of friends, one of whom genuinely wanted biological offspring (I am very sure that I don't, though I might adopt at some point). We concluded that this desire for a biological child is just one of those things - like a belief in God - some people genuinely have it, some people are incapable of the feeling, some people may not feel it strongly (or at all) but go along with the idea because it is what is socially done. (I know couples who have been badgered for years and had their manhood/womanhood/sanity called into question constantly for not having had children 'yet', as if that was their only goal in getting together)
And as long as there are existing children in the world who don't have homes or families, I don't think I'd be willing to produce more unless I felt a really strong need to.
[aishwarya] You are probably right - that wanting a biological child is indeed inexplicable. But to link it to womanhood I think is going overboard. I am totally with you there - I too wouldn't want to have a biological child unless I felt a really strong need to.
Post a Comment