That's the general consensus apparently. I had this experience at Amity's, prompting me to leave unannounced. Apparently it is still bugging me because, well, that was a year ago and I am still thinking about it. I just had this experience on the blog of a friend of a friend, which is dragging up the old Amity's issues.
I do not and will never understand the "pack mentality" of women. It's one thing if packs form for good. Entirely another if they form for the purposes of evil. **Edited out unfair judgmental statements that I didn't really mean**
You know what I hate even more? When I let myself get involved. It is SO HARD to not defend myself against the pack-attack.
To all the ladies in my life who've lost babies. I love you. Even if I don't know you very well, I love you. We are sisters in loss, and there is good that can come of that, if we just open ourselves to the possibility.
5 comments:
I'm sorry this whole situation is bothering you. I had no idea that this "issue" would become so blown out of hand, let alone drudge up a past experience that upsets you. I hope that it doesn't dissuade you from trying to help others. I didn't feel that anything you said was out of line or condescending in any way. Clearly the women in the lynching party are over-sensitive and caddy, not to mention cruel and nasty for absolutely no reason. It amazes me that men want anything to do with women if that's the side they see of us... oy.
Few things, as I can't help but shake the feeling that this is in reference to me:
First off, I can't control what other people write. They were reacting because I was hurt. Whether that's right or wrong, that's something they get to live with. As I said in my posting, I hold no ill will against Gwen. I hope she reads this and sees that.
Secondly, the posting hurt me. Deeply. Mostly because a relative stranger was making diagnostic guesses under the assumption that I am unfamiliar with non-traditional modes of medicine, my own body, and the ramifications of loss. I understand these things and more. My losses have little to do with the rate at which my subsequent pregnancies occurred. Saying that to a woman *IS* saying "These losses are your fault." It is Gwen's opinion that had I waited, those subsequent pregnancies wouldn't have ended. That opinion is painful to me because it is simply another instance of shoving blame somewhere it doesn't belong.
Interestingly, this is not the opinion of my physicians, naturopaths, or the ayurvedic specialist I've consulted. The opinion isn't held by my accupuncturist or nutritionist either. It doesn't bear out when you study the hormone levels collected biweekly by the medical study I was involved in. Nor can you find it in a review of the studies on pregnancy acquisition and loss.
Gwen, you are utterly entitled to your opinion - and entitled to share it on a public blog. You'll note that I didn't remove your posting, nor did I tell you that you weren't allowed to share it on my blog. I provided more information to show you that your opinion was most likely wrong in my case.
A public flogging is inappropriate - and was - which is why you didn't receive one from me. I'm sorry that this bore out the way that it did - I stumbled over here quite accidentally, but commented as I hope this doesn't weigh on you too heavily or for too long.
I'm hesitant to respond to this comment. I say that because I think we are on different pages. Shoot, I'm pretty sure we're not even in the same book.
Respectfully, I did not mean to imply fault for your losses ~M. I didn't say anything to that effect and I still don't see where that was even implied. My motivation to post at all was from my experience that most women are only barely knowledgeable about how their bodies work, about resources available to them, and about alternative thoughts on this issue. You are correct that I did not know these things about you, which is why I prefaced my comments with a disclaimer to that effect. It is my hope that by keeping my blog public someone may stumble upon it and find some information that was new to them. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that most women who post about such private things share that sentiment. It was from that perspective that I decided to post on your blog.
I do recognize that to put myself out there is also to open myself to criticism, and after much thought I've decided that's ok. It's the nature of the beast. I truly do hope that you get to the bottom of your issues. I hope that someone else who happens along your blog can find a spark of hope or ideas in the sharing of such a variety of experiences.
I know that my heart was in the right place, and as such I recognize that my ability to help here has passed. Brightest blessings to you on your journey, and please pass that along to the other women who found my response to be "shameful" or "sickening". I truly mean that.
--Gwen
I just had a thought. I wonder if part of this misunderstanding doesn't stem from the fact that we are not in the same part of the country. Hear me out. Saint Louis is totally different culturally than Denver is. I've been here 10 years and still find myself experiencing culture shock regularly. In Saint Louis we do not have access, as women, to different opinions on reproductive health. Shoot, most hospitals in our area won't perform sterilization surgery, and the ones that do require a 60-day "thought period" before hand. A large number of our OB/GYN's refuse to prescribe medications that are used as birth control, even if that's not what you intend to use them for. Getting an appointment with ONE OB/GYN is difficult, scheduling a second opinion is nearly impossible. Midwifery in a clinical setting is really really hard to find, and homebirth midwifery is illegal. The #1 preferred method of birth control as recommended by doctors is the rhythm method. Seriously. In contrast to Denver, we're practically a third world country, lol.
I often forget that not everyone lives this reality every day. I forget that not everyone is limited in their access to differing opinions. I share my experiences from the perspective that women find this information difficult to access because around here it often IS.
I don't know if that changes your opinion of my opinion but I hope that it sheds a bit of light on why I would suggest what seemed to you to be "duh" suggestions.
First off, Gwen, it's all good. Not liking what someone says is, in my opinion, far different from not liking a person.
You may be on to something with the St. Louis thing. I think that generally speaking, had you said something along the lines of "My experience is in X, are you familiar with it?" and then followed with advice, it would've been taken one way, whereas your posting was taken another way because it begins with the assumption of ignorance. It's always good to be sure people are on the same page before you start, lest you lose an audience from the get go either because they don't understand you or because they feel you're treating them as Doofi (I'm assuming this is the plural of doofus. If not, it sounds good, so I'll go with it).
Above all else, though, these words - mine to you and yours to me - we should realize aren't personal. Or, rather, shouldn't be, which is why I tried very hard to maintain that as I explained what offended me.
Anyhow, I just wanted to be sure that we were on the same page here. Or, like you said, at least in the same book. Or library. :)
Post a Comment