Permanent "Maternal Amnesia" - a betrayal

I had a moment when interacting with my sisters - one stated that motherhood had permanently robbed her of much of her intellectual capacity. "Maternal Amnesia", you know. They nodded together and said that their brains had turned to mush after becoming pregnant, and that they would never recover to any great extent. The elder, both her children now adults, looked smug about it, the younger, whose children are under five years of age, less so.

I remarked that though I experienced significant memory loss at the times I was pregnant and breast-feeding, my mind had rebounded just fine, thank you. The protestations of the elder sister got firmer, and she gave me the sly, conspiratorial smile that indicated that I was supposed to grab on to this "Eternal Maternal Amnesia" concept as though it were of advantage to me to confirm it. I realised that to her, the maternal amnesia tag is a great scapegoat for forgetfulness, mental fatigue, or instances of a lack of brain-power of whatever kind. As a mother, I was supposed to say 'Yes. Yes, we all have Maternal Amnesia - and that's why you men have to do all that nasty hard thinking for us. *giggle*' (wink, wink)

There is not much I can say to that except: "Fuck OFF!"

That is not what I actually said, but my quiet, flat rejection of the concept was received as a betrayal. A betrayal of mothers, whose lives should be made easier by being able to blame momentary lapses in cognitive performance on parenthood as though it were some noble sacrifice. My sisters looked at me as though I were a stubborn, slightly psycho and entirely humourless militant feminist.

I have no intention of going along with the suggestion that gestating and giving birth to a child - and subsequently raising it - means that I forever more have some level of acquired brain damage. My brain is fine. Not perfect by any means, but significantly more powerful than the vast majority of people, mothers or not. Whatever impairments I have can be more accurately attributed to things other than being a mother.

Yes, I do forget things, I do have trouble thinking on occasion, I have been known to get to an intersection when driving and wonder where the hell I was going, or even where I am. But that is because I, like any childless human, get tired. I get stressed. I have a busy and complex life. I am not as fit or perfectly nourished as I could be. I need more sleep. I get overloaded by the outrageous amounts of sensory input that I encounter every damn day. Raising three children takes up a substantial part of my energy, but no more than if I were nursing a relative with a terminal illness, writing a novel to deadline, or struggling with a thesis, - or if I were a farmer trying to keep my core blood-stock alive through a drought.

People everywhere undergo stresses and their performance suffers to an extent determined by so many influencing factors that it's pretty fair to call it luck. To suggest that these experiences - sustained or short-lived - leave those who endure them with permanent impairment to their intellectual ability is outrageous. To suggest that all women who bear children irreversibly reduce their intellectual potential is outrageous, offensive and wrong.

I can't express my shock and my own sense of betrayal at realising that my elder sister, at least, is willing to cheerfully perpetuate and compound the theory that mothers have less capacity to contribute to society (outside parental roles) than either men or childless women. Why would she do that to mothers? To me? Does she realise? Does she care? What is the pay off? Is it so important to have an excuse other than 'I'm exhausted' or 'I'm stressed out' or 'I have not had a break from my many, many unpaid and unacknowledged domestic jobs for nine years and am in a bit of a depressive rut'?

Is it just more socially acceptable to have a blanket excuse, even though it impugns the usefulness of all mothers? Somehow it offends me more than the "Don't ask me, I'm just a girl." cliché. Possibly because the 'Eternal Maternal Amnesia' idea is new to me, possibly because I see it as pseudo-science, possibly because I see it as compounding the problem of females being perceived as less intellectually able than men in the first place.

Apart from anything else, I believe that it is just plain bad for women with intellectual aspirations to have the spectre of 'diminished capacity though motherhood' brandished at them. Yes, priorities shift when a baby arrives and parenthood can change anyone, but having a baby does not equate with permanent impairment of intellectual capacity.

Anyone with good science supporting the phenomenon of Maternal Amnesia can make an argument that it does impact the mental capabilities of mothers and I would not be surprised, but I would be ... fascinated to see evidence that it persists far beyond the point of weaning - or the point of the child/ren going to school - or growing up and leaving home, as is the case with my elder sister.

Now I am getting tired and starting to ramble and repeat myself. Is it because of Maternal Amnesia? I am rather more inclined to think that it's because this is my first week of Information Technology Lectures at the main campus of the University, and funnily enough, I'm tired.

Action against Aboriginals: The wrong "something"

(originally generated as a blog comment. Edited for posting here)

I believe that Howard believes that he is acting in the best interests of the Australian Nation. I do not believe that he is oblivious to the polarising effect this issue and his governments actions will have on the populace. I do not believe that he is unaware that this loaded issue will, at the very least, dilute the attention that the public will devote to more regular election issues such as interest rates, workplace relations reforms and climate change/energy supply matters.

I am suspicious of the timing of this action. Yes, there is a new report, but it's far from the first I've heard of it, so I have to hope that the nation's leader was aware that not all was well in outlying Aboriginal communities before this.

I am also doubtful that Howard genuinely believes that the actions that are being taken are going to have the effect that he says he wants. Given my doubt on that front, I wonder whether he is not proceeding with "politician's logic" as defined in the BBC's spiffing "Yes Minister/Prime Minister" TV series as: "Something must be done. This is something, therefore we must do it." in order to be seen by the populace to be doing something dramatic and pro-active about the situation.

I find it disturbingly illogical that the action does not target alcohol abuse. It does not target child abuse. And nor does it target welfare abuse. It targets Aboriginal people regardless of whether they abuse children, welfare or alcohol.

I've never checked the "Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent" box on any government form I've submitted, but if I had, would that mean that the glass of wine on the desk beside me is a crime? Would it mean that my offspring would have to have regular gynaecological examinations? Would half the household's welfare entitlement be set aside somewhere so I could not blow it? How does that work? Do I have the wrong end of the stick?

I have to wonder how many kids filling out Austudy application forms for the coming year will not declare their racial heritage for fear they not be allowed the same privileges as their non-Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander classmates at some future point. (Mmm. I can almost smell the assimilation.)

I've been making comments along the lines of "First they came for the Refugees...". I would love to feel confident that the actions being taken towards Aboriginal people are not a second iteration, but given that I am a likely target of a third iteration, I'm nervous.

I don't think that the government's motivation is pure, and I don't see how the actions that are being taken are effectively addressing the problem in the long or short term. The "shock and awe" tactics being used... they are the wrong "something".