A Second Helping of Fried Mice

In Autism, Vaccines, and Fried Mice,  I talked about mothers' distrust of the medical world, and I want to talk a bit more about that.  In The Winter Rose India goes into Whitechapel armed with pictures of smiling broccoli (literally) assuming that parents in poverty don't know that vegetables are good for their children.  I felt a like one of those mothers recently.  I had checked a variety of books on children and sleep out of the library.  Like so many parents, bedtime is not my forte and my son is often up later than I would like and/or putting him to bed does not go as smoothly as I would hope.  So, because reading a book is how I start to solve almost any problem, I read some books.  And one of authors spent the first third of his book telling me how important sleep was.  How my son had to get a good night's sleep if I wanted him to excel in school, to be happy balanced adult, if I wanted to be a good parent.

I was offended and stopped reading.  Of course I know my son needs a good night's sleep, just like I know I do.  If I didn't think he needed sleep, why would I be reading a book on it?  And this writer's assumption of my ignorance reminded me of India and her smiling vegetables.  And made me realize that things maybe haven't progressed so much in the past 100 years.

Granted, this book on sleep was at least a decade old and things have changed a bit.  There seems to be a new trend, particularly in nutrition, that we should trust our child's instincts more and force things less.  But the dynamic between the medical professional and the mother has been ugly for a long time and will not be easily changed.

I am not saying that the public does not need to be educated about changes in scientific thought, both the vaccine/autism debate and the creationism/evolution debate speak the general population's dearth of understanding regarding the philosophy of science.  But the tone and relation between the mothers and medical authorities is way out of whack.  I wonder if some of this goes back to the rise of science and medicine and the way healing was removed from the women's realm and put in the men's.  The reaction to the plague in Ken Follet's World Without End seems an accurate fictionalization of how gender affected the development of medicine and vice versa.

What I think what needs to change is the American Medical Associations', the American Academy of Pediatrics' and even the CDC's approach.  There is frequently the tone that they are the "learned" ones while mothers are ignorant and must be educated.  There is general amnesia about the fact that mothers have been raising children successfully for thousands of years while these groups have only been around for decades.  And that what these groups recommended a generation ago is now not recommended, even frowned upon.  While we have seen a shift in the gender roles within medical practice (at least women are allowed to practice in our culture), there is still the nature/science divide.  Things like homeopathy and co-sleeping are discounted and in the process medical authorities remain didactic instead of understanding and helpful.  And as a result, women will continue to feed their children fried mice, at least figuratively.

Autism, Vaccines, and Fried Mice

***Disclaimer:  I am very pro-vaccine.  But arguing about that is not my purpose here.  I'm interested in why and how we believe medical advice.  And how that ties in to bigger ideas of motherhood.

One of my favorite novels is Jennifer Donnelly's The Winter Rose.  This epic historical piece tells the story of India, a wealthy woman who becomes one of England's first female doctors.  Set in the first decade of the 20th century, India, who is admit about making a difference in the lives of the poor, takes a job at a clinic in Whitechapel.  Convinced if she can just educate the people there about nutrition and sanitation, their lives will be vastly improved.  She learns, quickly, however, that the problems that plague the poor of London are not that simple.

One of those lessons comes from a nurse she is working with and involves a fried mouse.  One of India's patients is a small girl suffering from TB.  India is incensed when she finds out that the girl's mother has given her a fried mouse to eat, a common "old wives' tale" cure for the disease.  She is frustrated by the ignorance of such a remedy, pointing out that mice carry diseases which could have made the child worse.

But the nurse she is talking to is wiser. She explains to India that it's hard to watch your child suffer and not do anything.  The mother doesn't have much money, but she has plenty of mice.  So, while frying a mouse and feeding it to your child might not be a good thing to do, it is something.  And while the nurse doesn't make this point, her argument seems to be that the fried mouse was as much tonic for the mother's sense of helplessness as it was for her daughter's symptoms.

This seems to me to be part of what is behind the vaccine/autism debate.  We know so little about the disorder, especially about what causes it.  When some scientists presented a cause, backed by some data, it makes sense that people latched onto the idea.  I think this idea also hit a chord with the attachment parenting movement, though I haven't completely thought that through.

I have  The Panic Virus sitting at home, waiting for me to get to it.  I'll be interested to see what Mnookin has to say on the issue.  But the title alone fits with my argument here.  Avoidance of vaccination comes from a fear of harming your child.  And which side you come down on depends on which you fear more, the potential harm of vaccines or the potential harm of diseases these vaccines prevent.

I have certainly had nights where I'm up with a sick child and I'm rummaging through the medicine cupboard trying to find something to give him because I just want him to feel better.  And, I will admit, I have occasionally given him medicine that is not exactly for his age or is slightly expired, because I just want to do something!

I think as parents we are told everything is fixable and preventable.  [I've talked about something similar before, see my post on Attachment Parenting and Helicopter Parents]  So, if our child is sick, there must be something we can do.  And we are a bad parent if we can't figure out what that is.  And this is a motivation behind the vaccination/autism issue.

We also have a tradition of listening to other parents over medical professionals.  Much like the fried mouse incident~it's something you know another parent has done or believes and therefore you put more stock in that than something that comes from the government or a medical authority.  Parenting by "fad" has always been a popular approach, one that does not always run parallel to medical advice.  And really, who can blame parents.  Just look at the every changing advice on whether a newborn should sleep on her back, stomach or something else altogether. 

It seems safe to say that mothers don't feel valued by groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics.  And if you are not respected by a group, why would you listen to and respect its opinions?

Thoughts on THE RED TENT

I'm re-re-re-re-reading Anita's Diamant's The Red Tent.  I've always enjoyed the book; it's well written and gripping, as well as imaginative.  But the book appeals on a greater level than that.

I recently read Linda's Holmes' thoughts on the phrase "Chick Lit."  And as much as I resist forcing gender differentiation onto novels, I think there are some differences.  My favorite women authors tend to write about characters who are defined by their relationships.  Jennifer Weiner, who Holmes focuses on, writes about women who are mothers, and wives, and sisters, and friends.  My favorite men authors tend to write about characters who are defined by their experiences.

The Red Tent definitely fits into the relationship category.  The point of the women's lives in this novel is their relationships.  They are mothers and sisters and wives.  But more importantly, they are women and that ties them to every other women they encounter.  Every month, the women get to spend a week together in the red tent while they menstruate.  And this week is a time of celebration, not a time of complaining about bloating and cramps and taking Midol.  A girl's menarche is a huge celebration when she officially enters the collective womanhood.  Similarly, childbirth, even though a scary thing in these pre-medicinal times, is a time of collective womanhood. 

This I think is why the novel was so popular and remains an embracing read.  It speaks to that part of our culture that we've lost.  As childbirth and menarche and menstruation have become medicinized (more on this later) we've lost that sense of women's collective.  What rituals do women have left?  How often do we get together to deal with our lives as a group?

I can think of only a few--bridal showers and baby showers being the most obvious.  And honestly, these events are usually dull.  They do not celebrate the power of the woman involved, but usually domesticate her.  She is reduced to the new role she is assuming--"wife" or "mother." She is showered with gifts that are not for her, but for the other--husband or baby. 

Through the centuries, women have lost power, both in the public sphere, as well as in their own lives.  I encourage us as women (and also as men since I think they've lost their ritual base as well) to rebuild this ritual element.  Let us celebrate our power and our community.  Let us create a new red tent and fill in that gap that we search for in Diamant's novel. 

September 11, 2010