Last week a few of us got into an impromptu Twitter debate around an article posted by our very own Little Miss Poppit. The article in question is about Miranda Kerr and her birthing choices.
The comment in question was about her not wanting an epidural so she could avoid drugging her baby. In the best traditions of the media this was somewhat sensationalised, with the actual except from the interview being her “Recalling how in a few of the films she watched “the baby was a little bit drugged up” when put on its mother’s breast, she decided “Well, I don’t want that”.”
Now for the record I’ll openly admit to a little bias here because Miranda Kerr has always struck me as very down to earth and normal given her occupation, even with Legolas hanging off one arm. Plus she’s rather easy on the eye, and that can always help skew an opinion.
However, today’s debate is more about the reaction this has caused. Poppit’s comment was that she was “Stirring the pot” because she’d knocked back pain medication and insisted on an all-natural birth as she wanted “the best start possible for her baby”, and that this was a slight on other mums who may not have been able to or elected not to have a completely natural birth.
I can see where Poppit is coming from, but I had to disagree. I didn’t think there was anything malicious in Miranda’s comments and didn’t suspect her of admiring the view from her high horse once I’d read the article. I read it as her making a decision based on what she knew, to be in her opinion the best start she could give to her baby.
We declared that debate null and void because 140 characters is a sucky forum for a debate, so I elected to bring it here for further consideration.
In the few days since, there have been several news articles (after all, our media does always focus on the biggest stories) and a convenient blog post on Monday that I had to poke my nose into. Rather than retype a bunch of it I’m going to pull out one of my responses to someone using that magic copy and paste functionality:
I think you’re missing the point of “I wanted to give him/them the best start that I could”. If you had to have an epidural/caeser/forceps/whatever else or you couldn’t breast feed and had to go straight to formula then that’s the best start you were able to give. That’s not a bad thing.
If you were fortunate enough to have several different options at birth and chose a specific one then that may or may not have been the best start for your baby depending on what you chose.
Miranda was fortunate enough to have options and chose one which based on what she knew was the best for her baby. Why one earth is that attacking anyone else?
She’s famous. She couldn’t break wind in public without it making headlines somewhere. Someone asks her why she does something and she answers it honestly and without malice and she gets attacked for it.
I asked my mother-in-law (A midwife) about the “drugged baby” thing and apparently it can sometimes happen when the birthing mother takes pain relief, apparently it can sometimes cause the baby to be groggy or have difficulty feeding initially. So in that sense Miranda was right, but then every aspect of birth carries its own risks and benefits be it gas, epidural, spinal, induction, caeser or any other choice or necessity that happens. Maybe she was too focused on this one bit, maybe she had a birth plan that she was determined to stick to and was fortunate enough that she could.
I’ve seen first hand what can happen when a birth plan has to be deviated from, and the effects this can have on both mother and baby. In that case you do what is necessary and in mum’s and bub’s best interests but I would, wherever medically possible, respect the mum’s desire choose how the birth is done provided it doesn’t increase the danger to anyone.
So how do you read her comments? A mum making her own birthing decisions and that’s it, or is she lauding it over other mums who aren’t so fortunate? Should she watch what she says in interviews to avoid upsetting anyone or just resign herself to people making what they will from what she says and just answer things honestly?
I’m with you on this one Plucker. I read this as Miranda talking about her choice given what she knew or wanted. If she’d gone further to make comments about other mothers like, ‘I think anyone who has pain medication during birth is a bad mother’ or ‘I don’t think anyone should take pain medication during birth’ then I’d consider her a bit irresponsible.
But she didn’t. She talked only about the birth of her child and the choices she made for that birth and I thought she did it very responsibly. If other people choose to feel pressure because of what she said, that’s their problem, not hers.
That is exactly right.
I agree,
It’s the media who have stirred this up and created a mountain out of a molehill because it sells trashy magazines. Similar to me watching today tonight because I want to know who’s been ripping me off and what’s going to give me cancer this week.
The media sickens me but the worst part is that there is a market for it.
The “beautiful people” should be seen and not heard…
KIDDING!
Now THAT was stirring the pot.
I’m reminded of a song, Stigmata Martyr by Abney Park. It’s about fame, fans, how people just can’t wait to see a famous person fall from grace, and how people will virtually stone them if they voice an opinion.
Had Ms. Kerr held a press conference, or gone on a talk show, to decry the use of drugs (or vaccines), then indeed she could be accused of stirring the pot. As it is, she answered a question.
If ANYBODY can be accused of stirring the pot it’s whomever wrote the article under the guise of journalism. It’s listed as “staff writers.” The entire story is accusatory and leads you down the yellow brick road to a specific conclusion.
Read the article paragraph by paragraph, ignore previous and following paragraphs. Just concentrate on one at a time and you can’t help seeing the astounding level of bias that’s passed off as “journalism” these days.
“despite doctor’s recommendations”
“recalling how in a few of the films”
“the dramatic revelation”
“she was like… and I’m like”
“the model’s insinuations”
Dramatic revelation indeed!
Every paragraph has been crafted to make Ms. Kerr:
• a moron who doesn’t listen to trained professionals
• an idiot who views films as reality (note: films, not videos)
• an airhead who talks like an 80s “Valley Girl”
And the kicker comes at the end where the WRITER tells their readers what they feel Ms. Kerr insinuated, and that it “could potentially anger.”
Farting in an elevator could potentially anger. And that’s my opinion on the “staff writers.” Their writing is about as offensive as a fart in a crowded elevator.
And I totally agree with that as well.
And the elevator analogy is good, although possibly too kind.
And the point of good journalism is to present the facts and let people make up their own mind. All this leading by the nose is too frequent in popular press and certainly affects those who don’t read around a topic. Or read between the lines.
See, I didn’t read it like that. To me it sounded like she gathered the information that she did and made an informed decision based upon her knowledge.
But I suppose, now that it has been said, it does sound like that…
And that may indeed be the case. But it shouldn’t be presented as a news article when it’s an opinion piece. But we all know that doesn’t sell copy.
I’m amused by the amount of outrage that has already hit the Twitterverse about it since the magazine doesn’t hit news stands for another week. This means the outrage was almost entirely fabricated from “news” articles written by people who are paid to write inflammatory stories to drive up magazine purchases.
edit: Misunderstood your post. Yes, Ms. Kerr did do her research and made an informed decision. I read your sentence as the “staff writer” blah blah blah.
We’re in agreement.
Nothing to see here.
Move along.
Move along.
Sorry, should have started that sentence out with MIRANDA made: haha, my bad.
I didn’t read it that way either – my interpretation is that she watched some birth videos, saw that some of the babies looked less than alert, and made an assumption (without any supporting evidence) that the epidural was the cause, and the assumption that the less-than-alert baby wasn’t having the best start in life.
I don’t really give two hoots what Ms Kerr did during the birth of her baby – just like I don’t care about what the “helpful” biddies in my local shopping centre did when birthing their children. What happened to them did, and what happened to me did. Let’s all move on.
Ms Kerr is young, beautiful, successful, with an equally young, beautiful and successful husband. This apparently makes her fair game for the less fortunate in the world – ie the rest of us. If the poor girl had needed a Caesarian under general anaesthetic which meant she couldn’t feed her baby straight away, well, she’d be insulted and thrown out for the dogs then, too. Poor thing can’t do or say anything right because the public is too envious of her success.
I don’t care what she did either. The point is you do what’s best for your baby, to bring them into the world alive and healthy. And you shouldn’t feel bad for that.
Firstly: I think Miranda Kerr is sh*t hot. If she walked into a room I think I might faint.
Secondly: I think she did an absolutely GREAT thing by not having drugs while giving birth. I personally plan to book in an epidural the minute I find out I’m pregnant (for the minute AFTER that initial minute, never to early if you ask me). That’s my choice and that is her choice.
What concerns me is the fact that, unlike a lot of the intelligent people here, not all people will see her comments as harmless and *that* is why it is stirring the pot.
See it this way: Miranda Kerr is beautiful, successful and from all of of her publicists work we see her as intelligent. Women look up to her. While you and I are able to see that she isn’t taking a dig, a lot of people will. Women have enough to deal with when it comes to becoming a mother and I’m just not entirely sure a model announcing her ‘perfect’ birth is healthy for all those mothers who are already feeling the million other pressures.
I know that my mother had an epidural for my birth (3 days with 17 1/2 hours of active labour) and it was traumatic regardless of whether or not she had that epidural. She suffered from bad post natal depression. Seeing a perfect person like Miranda come out and say that she also had that perfect un-medicated birth isn’t healthy, it is damaging, more so than some might think.
See I sat here and tried to write something and I gave up, but you did it for me. Much obliged
I agree that Miranda Kerr has a right to an opinion and was not intentionally putting down other people. But I do think people bring their own feelings and experiences to a situation and that they will therefore take the comments to heart.
But does that mean that people aren’t allowed to innocently talk about their own lives and views anymore for fear of offending/upsetting a group of people who either chose or had to take different paths?
I see other examples of this in my life too – I don’t want an engagement ring. For me (*for me*) it would be a waste of money as I don’t particularly care for them on my finger and I think it’s money I could put to better use. But woebetide any friend who discovers this as they suddenly feel the need to justify their choice to have an engagement ring and why they wanted one etc. I’m not questioning anybody elses choice in choosing not to want one, why do people see it as an attack on their life decisions and get all defensive? I don’t care if anyone else wants to have one and I make all the right gushing noises over friends rings.
You’re not influencing thousands of people. Miranda is and she KNOWS she is, which is where the problem is for me. I was all for her having interviews saying that she had a drug free birth but by saying that she wanted to give her child the best start in life kind of makes it sound although people like my Mum didn’t.
Again, you and I can rationalise this, but persons from low socio-economic backgrounds would have significantly bigger issues. I just don’t understand why she HAD to say these things. She understands her influence, she isn’t stupid. Media interpretation or not she made that particular statement!
I think that it’s not up to Miranda Kerr to worry about what other people think when she makes a statement about her life. When did there become a rule that people have the right to not be offended or to not feel pressure or something? Miranda Kerr has absolutely no control over how other people take what she says. If other people choose to feel her comments are denigrating to them, then that is *their* problem. In this interview, Miranda didn’t say *anything* about anyone else. She simply said that she wanted to give her baby the best start in life that she could and that, *for her*, that was drug free. If someone else sees this as a criticism of their choices, that person has bigger problems than an epidural during birth. (And no, that last statement doesn’t mean *I* think epidurals are bad. I’ve never had kids, I think people should do what is right for them.)
There also isn’t really a rule saying you have to be nice to people, but most people do our best and try.
She may not have said anything about anyone else but again, given her influence, she knows that people will LISTEN to her. Women who have already had children or are about to have children now have this as an extra pressure. I don’t see WHY she needed to say that. I don’t like the comment ‘I wanted to give my child the best start in life’ makes it sound like people who have had an epidural DIDN’T want to do that whether she intended to imply it or not.
How far does this extend – do people that say they said they sent their child to a private school because they wanted to give them the best education that they could mean that they are implying people who send their children to public schools don’t want too? People can read a lot of stuff into innocent comments that the person never meant.
By saying things like that you are saying that people who are publicly educated’s parents didn’t have the best intentions for them, which sucks. Why do we need to make statements like that at all? Why do celebrities feel the need to make these statements knowing that people fall over themselves for every word they say?
You may think it is innocent, but it isn’t. It hurts peoples feelings. It makes parents feel like, for whatever reason, they haven’t done the absolute best they could for their child by that ‘so called’ innocent statement.
But that’s the difference between the best intentions and the best you are able to given your means. If you have money coming out the wazoo then you can hire your own staff of English professors in tweed jackets with patches on the elbows then well done. That’s the best you can provide. I’m lucky if loose change ever comes out of my wazoo so any school with a 500+ year old name is probably off the cards. Doesn’t mean I won’t provide the best I can for my little munchkin.
Well people need to harden up then and stop doubting their own choices all the time. That’s what this is all about – choices. People who can’t afford private schooling, who had to have an epidural because they needed a ceaserian etc. didn’t have a choice. For everyone else that makes a decision to take a particular path, own that decision and be prepared that there will be others who will make opposite choices and who will talk about them and their reasons.
Hear hear.
In some ways I agree with you. I don’t think people, merely because they’re famous, should be talking about things they know nothing about. For example, when Tom Cruise said a while ago that all psychology and psychological drugs are evil. *That* is a direct comment that criticises other people’s choices.
But, if Tom had said, that personally, he didn’t like psychology and didn’t think psychological drugs were right for him because he wanted to give himself the best chance at life then I think he has every right to hold that opinion *and* to publically make that statement. If other people think he’s saying that their choices are bad, they need to take a cement pill.
I wasn’t able to MMM yesterday, do indulge me for a moment.
Mr Nerd is home!! Spent all day with him yesterday trying to stop him from going to sleep. It was nice. I missed him
I also got my results yesterday for uni and managed to not only get a Distinction for the class I thought I may have failed, but a High Distinction, and in fact a score of 97 for my programming class. YAY!!!!!!!!!! I heart programming!
Gratz!!
That is a great result HEA!
Massive high fives!
I don’t think she was stirring the pot and I don’t have a problem with her saying she chose to have a pain relief free birth because she thought it was better for her baby. She is entitled to her opinion and it’s not a reflection on other people’s birth experiences – she’s talking about her body, her birth and her baby, not anyone elses. She shouldn’t have to gag herself because she is a celebrity. If people reading the article project her comments onto themselves that is their own insecurities at play which they need to work on.
I know some people have very traumatic births or have no choice but to have an epidural etc. Does this mean that women who do have ‘good’ birthing experiences shouldn’t be allowed to talk about it? Maybe it’s reassuring to some pregnant women to hear that births can go well and drug free births are achievable in some circumstances.
I think the main issue is not the “I wanted to give him/them the best start that I could”, which is quite a laudable thing. But it assumes that not doing things naturally must be the best start possible.
I’ll come right out and say it: Nature isn’t nice. It isn’t kind. It isn’t fair.
Giving birth in a hospital isn’t natural – it’s about as unnatural as its possible to get. Whilst modern medicine isn’t perfect, a lot less babies and mothers die during childbirth than they used to last century or before.
In some cases, an epidural – or gas, or any other type of drug – may cause a drugged out baby during its first feed. Just like a mother who is stressed out or in severe pain may have trouble producing milk for that feed.
It’s impossible to say, in either case, what’s “best”.
I think that once upon a time I was in the “don’t want a drugged up baby” camp, 100% due to my HTT mother’s anecdotes.
Now I think – hang on, if it is so insanely painful for the mother, how is it not painful for the baby? Their skulls are collapsing and they are potholing without prior experience. That stuff hurts. Maybe pain relief is good for them? We don’t go and have our tonsils removed without pain relief.
Either way as long as both end up alive and well afterwards, that is a successful birth. It’s up to the parents and whatever their healthcare needs dictate. No use having a plan if you haven’t got some sort of backup.
I’m not sold on the whole having children idea anyway, so I think my opinion is moot. Kids, stay out of stormwater drains.
PS Miranda is hot but she is definitely a member of the cavalry, not just on this front.
People will personalise and internalise what you say regardless of the size of your audience, some people want to see a judgement call in what you say regardless of your intention. Personally I am not a person who thinks what a celebrity says should have any impact on how I live my life. However in every social group there are people who want to follow a famous example and in so much as it’s their choice to do so I’m fine with that.
As for me I make choices for me and my life based on what I want, the public/ private schooling thing is a good example. Should I adopt and have the income to pay for private schooling, I probably will. I had a public education in primary school and there was nothing wrong with it but I like the idea of smaller class sizes and more options/ flexibility in learning programs.
In order to feel good about my decision some part of me has to think that this will be better for my child than the alternative. So on some level I agree that there is an implication that by saying I am giving my child the “best start” I can I am doing what I believe is the best thing, which by extension means a different choice is not considered by me to be the best.
What it does not mean though is that I don’t respect other choices or understand that there are other options that different people have made that they believe is best. I’m not even saying that I think a different choice can’t produce the same results or outcome because plenty of people make different choices about child birth or private schools and they end up with perfectly healthy, normal, lovely kids.
If somebody thought my comment implies either of these things then I would agree with Pokey that that is their problem. If they assume my choice or my defence of it makes their different choice “wrong” or not the best for them any more then the problem lies with how they feel about their choice and not the reason behind mine or what I have said if that makes sense.
I’m not outraged by her comments, she has an opinion on an issue and she is welcome to it. Celebrities, regardless of how hot they are, are not responsible for how I make or subsequently feel about my life choices.
I completely agree Bec, I think that a lot of people are oversensitive about what others will think. I have recently come to the conclusion that for myself I am going to own my emotions. No more “you made me feel…” It is impossible for someone to “make me feel” anything other than direct physical pain. I choose how I take their comments, their body language, their interaction with me. Therefore it isn’t their fault that I am upset, it is mine.
I was going to put a disclaimer on this post, but why should I have to? Why should anyone have to put a disclaimer on their thoughts or opinions?
I agree, their actions lead to a reaction in you, own the reaction.
That is not to say they are not responsible for their behaviour and should try to modify it based on your reaction (or to try to avoid repeating the actions/ behaviours that they know cause you pain) but the emotional pain felt is your reaction and ultimately your responsibility.
Completely agree and that is the point I was trying to make. Celebrities are not involved in my life, so their opinion counts for nothing. Friends and family members however, their opinion matters. I *know* that I will be getting a great steaming pile of unwanted advice from some family members should I ever be lucky enough to have children. My reaction to the advice they are offering (with love and well-meaning) is my responsibility. If I am not strong enough to say “I dont want to hear that” or “I plan to do this” then any guilt I feel is my own.
Perhaps in the case that they are hateful or discriminatory. I am pretty over free speech as an excuse to spew vitriol and lies. One person immediately comes to mind.
The kind of people who think that way tend not to care about the way their comments are taken, I think those people wouldn’t even consider a disclaimer.
Jess’ point is valid though, you’re welcome to any thought or opinion, I don’t have too listen to it, agree or like it and you don’t have the full, unfettered right to say it to any audience but you can think whatever you want.
Free speech is a lie, much like cake; it is both a responsibility and a privilege in reality. Being a douchebag and having douchebag opinions is never a valid argument for “free” speech on that point we are in perfect agreement.
Like Bec I agree with you, I just wanted to add, I also have the right to completely disregard any comments that I want.
When it comes to people spilling hate, racisim and other negatives, well I have the ability to tell them “I don’t enjoy hearing (insert here), so I will no longer be listening to you” I have done this on many occasions (even with family members) when I thought something was out of line. I then walk away from the conversation and do something else.
That is something that society seems to be forgetting. We always have the power to walk away, switch off, stop reading, disengage. Why dont we more often?
I think because people try to combat the ignorance to improve the world.
Note to Smoph! – Hi! (and a rare post)
The media bombards people about so many ways of doing things that it is not surprising there is a general feeling of guilt and inadequacy. There is also no endorsement for doing things well, that does not make ‘news’ – it is when you do things ‘wrong’ that people get to hear about it. Rationalisation is not newsworthy so the facts leading up to a decision do not get a mention.
In the birth giving exams I did not give my children ‘the best possible opportunity’. These days, the result is not important but only the race (don’t you love humans!). My kids are free to punish me as they wish.
As for education, I sent one to private school and one to public school. The decision was based on the needs of the children. However, the school is irrelevant, the best possible thing you can do for your kids is take an interest in their education and supplement their education at home where possible. When you have seen things from the rich kids who have their own educational trusts who cannot spell or do basic maths to poor kids whose parents threaten the school when little ‘Joey’ brings his knife to school. There is good and bad everywhere.
Reading this over, it smacks of cynicism. I am sorry to sound so negative (must be the headache). However, I do remember the inadequacy of young parenthood (and I was not alone by all means) and how you were made to feel awful about your choices. I realise that this is media perpetrating this issue but maybe if we stopped reading this garbage they deliver (such naivete!)
So when asked questions about giving birth my stock answer is ‘I did what I could at the time, with the resources I had and the choices I had. My kids are free to comment when they have given birth themselves’.
Hello! Good to see you.
And that, to me, is the crux of this whole thing. You make the best of what you have. Miranda Kerr happens to have a heap. Good for her. But I can’t really begrudge her for having more than I do and making the most of it. I’ll save that up for people who tell me that winning the lotto was the worst thing ever.
I read the comments made as an answer to a question asked of her – she made a decision about her body and her unborn child based on the information she had at the time. I am sure that if there had been an issue during the birth where either the child’s or her life were in danger in any way, the story would be different.
I was bombarded with stories about ‘what’s best for baby’ when I was pregnant. At the end of the day, I had to make my own decisions about what was right for me. I did, and I have 2 beautiful (well I think they are) children who are happy and healthy.
Personally, I think that if you base all of your opinions about what you do with your life on how celebrities made their decisions (or how the media tells you celebrities made their decisions), then that’s a bit odd. And if I knew someone who did that, I probably wouldn’t be taking any advice they gave me too seriously either.
My mum (who had seven children) only ever gave this piece of advice:
“Don’t take any advice, except from that of your doctor too seriously and even then filter it through your own common sense and how you feel.”
Oh and:
“Accept help from the people who love you”
When talking to the press it seems equally important to be careful of what you say, how you say it and what you don’t say. Clearly the editors are going to look for an angle to attract as much impact as possible.
I don’t see anything wrong with what this young woman said but didn’t the writers have fun with it?
If she had simply said “I wanted a natural childbirth and lucky for me, it all turned out wonderfully for me and my child”. But they wouldn’t have let her leave it at that because that doesn’t open magazines let alone turn pages.
Or they may have said she was smug and condescending, you can’t win.
TBH this all smacks a bit of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”.
(For the record, I too have a bit of a girl crush on Miranda Kerr – she is indeed hot/beautiful/somewhere within that realm.)
Couldn’t give 2 hoots about her birthing choice, that was her decision to make. However, I can see both sides of the coin here – the inadequacy some women (not all) will feel upon hearing that a goddess of good looks was able to get through what is inarguably a tough task (I don’t have children, not sure I ever will, but I can only imagine at this stage!) without pain relief. To those sensitive types, it may appear as though Miranda is bragging in the article, even though we of sound intelligence know that it’s just a media beat-up designed to make others feel bad about their choices….
Which brings me to the second side of the coin. I don’t see why Miranda ought to have censored herself in case some people get their knickers in a twist – she made what she felt was an informed choice and what she felt was right for her and that gorgeous bub of her’s and stuck to it, end of. No need to make a mountain out of a molehill – yes I do understand that she is probably something of a role model for women, but as Maz said, if you base your choices and decisions on what celebrities have said and done, I probably wouldn’t take you very seriously either.
She didn’t have to censor herself and nor should she need to but she has to understand that it will been done to her to manipulate the readers. She is not famous enough to to demand copy review and approval.
This what the press do. She was fine, the press fucked this up and this blog and the other articles and blogs is what they wanted.
There is a “have” in there that disappeared.
Never say “Never”.