Bitch used to be a mandatory addition to my reading material on trips home. I'd go around Powell's, pick up some books and head straight for the magazine rack. I'd pick up a year's worth, sometimes more and bundle them into my carry on, burning through most of them on the long flight from Chicago to Manchester. Then, around 2006, something happened and the little part of me that screamed "yes, YES" with every article started to shrug. Nothing was new, or insightful or inspiring for me anymore. It felt like re-hash of everything I'd read before, Feminism 101 for the newbies. No more amazing dissections of
Jane or insight on female record collectors.
Yet, despite my sadness, I still watch the blog. I guess, these days, because I really like being outraged by things. But now it's all the wrong stuff, it's outrage at the writers and the fall of what I felt was a valuable publication into mediocrity. Constant, desperate pleas for money and cynical partnerships with people more out for their own ends than furthering the cause. Even worse, it's feminism for feminism's sake where Jezebel, a publication with writers that say they've never been raped because they're not stupid, overtook and left them in the dust long ago.
Today's post in the painfully named "Reproductive Writes" section was a new low, an insult to the reader's intelligence and a disservice to what
Bitch used to be.
The Baby Makers starts with an obvious premise. It's beneficial to the fertility industry to scare the crap out of women with various fertility harms. Seems obvious, they want money, you want a baby, making you think that conception is unlikely means money for them. Except the thems, the whos, the whys, the whats, the wheres are all missing. Or in other words, all elements of good journalism.
Holly Grigg-Spall starts her post saying that she believes new research discussing the impact of polybrominated diphenyl ethers and fiber on fertility are "
anxiety-inducing marketing ploy to feed the billion-dollar fertility industry." Sure, except if you check the
Scientific American article she actually cites. It goes on to discuss that this was a preliminary study by the University of California at Berkeley. The research was conducted on low income Hispanic migrant families to analyze the health impacts of their environments. The article goes on to discuss how this took 10 years and further research to study the fertility implications is needed.
So, out of this relatively banal observation that chemicals are bad for you, is it the
Scientific American who is out to exploit the fertility fears of women? Are they the cabal that tell women "not wait to have a child, start in your twenties, stay home and let your husband have a career?" Because the dangers of PBDEs are more commonplace in the home than in the workplace. I believe most of the women studied were stay at home mothers. So is it instead a encouragement not to be around things with these chemicals? Like rugs, or pillows, or curtains, food? Things typically advertised to women?
Her second piece of evidence for the huge advertising through "journalism" theory is from
the Mail. And this is the laziest part of the post, which is saying a lot. The Mail quotes a study, presumably
this one quoting findings that fiber could decrease fertility in women. The Mail, being the Mail, has a bad case of [Citation Needed] though. In this study, researchers at Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development found that while increased fiber consumption can decrease breast cancer risk that the resultant lowering of circulating estrogen concentrations may cause anovulation. Their findings pointed to more sources needed. The Mail, naturally, took this to their own conclusions in typical tabloid style.
So, Holly Grigg-Spall found two articles by two different research groups on things that impact fertility. And like your best 9/11 conspiracy theorist connected dots where there weren't any.
Scientific American's audience is far from the
Daily Mail. Hell, the countries aren't even the same. And on that token, as we all know from our health care debates, we have very different ways of going about getting fertility treatment. Here it's a matter of private insurance, if you have it. There the NHS will give you a couple gos for nothing. And if there is a vast conspiracy to get both Blue Cross and the NHS to fund more later in life fertility treatments, or even that both research groups (headed by women....) are trying to convince us to stay home and have babies, then it's pretty broad reaching.
What's more likely is
Scientific American and the
Daily Mail are publishing studies that will draw in readers. The
Daily Mail published a study from October as woman hating filler. Because fertility is a big deal. The angle, or the tone is up for debate but both articles promote the kind of body literacy that Grigg-Spall wants. Know how fiber, or chemicals could impact your chances of reproducing. Know what sub-fertility is so you don't freak out and spend thousands on IVF. She argues we need to be more informed. Well thanks to those articles and the studies, I certainly am.
Frankly, if this is the quality of what
Bitch is publishing now, they need their authority card revoked and fast. What the world needs less of is haphazard critiques of important discussions. What it needs more of is what
Bitch used to be.