"Women are risking their lives by getting pregnant and gestating."
I can't comment on the third world, but in places like the US (where this discussion is focused on), I'm pretty sure the mortality rate is pretty damn low, lower than a lot of the blue-collar jobs in common life.
Yet this radfem acting as if it's a deadly risk equivalent to living in Chernobyl is quite frankly hilarious.
They have to predicate their argument on the ‘risk’ because even if the risk of complications are .01% then they have to take it as a global affront that men don’t suffer that same risk.
Of course, they completely ignore when men are put into positions of inequality because they’re navel gazing idiots.
Weird how the demographic of women that suffers the highest rate of maternal mortality are Black African-American women.
Are the lives of Black women that easy to dismiss?
Furthermore: “I can’t comment on the third world” (racist term) “but in the US I’m pretty sure the mortality rate is low”
Wrong.
Overview of differences in maternal mortality, maternal care workforce, and access to postpartum care and social protections in the U.S. and
“The U.S. has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed countries. Obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) are overrepresented in its maternity care workforce relative to midwives, and there is an overall shortage of maternity care providers (both ob-gyns and midwives) relative to births. In most other countries, midwives outnumber ob-gyns by severalfold, and primary care plays a central role in the health system. Although a large share of its maternal deaths occur postbirth, the U.S. is the only country not to guarantee access to provider home visits or paid parental leave in the postpartum period.”
They go on to add:
“In 2018, there were 17 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births in the U.S. — a ratio more than double that of most other high-income countries (Exhibit 1). In contrast, the maternal mortality ratio was three per 100,000 or fewer in in the Netherlands, Norway, and New Zealand.”
Let’s see what the statistics are for Blue Collar mortality:
“Today, the vast majority of working Americans are relatively safe in their work environment. Across all industries in both the public and private sectors, there were 3.6 deaths for every 100,000 full-time workers.”
Furthermore, I went through the list of the 25 most dangerous jobs in the USA in 2018.
Motherhood (17:100,000) was as dangerous as being a “miscellaneous farm worker”, or, in other words, being a pregnant woman in the USA is still as dangerous as being Juan Fulano from El Salvador picking tomatoes and strawberries (17.4:100,000).
Other “blue collar jobs” less dangerous than being pregnant?
Grounds maintenance workers (17:100,000); Shop Mechanic Supervisors (15:100000); construction workers/general labourers (15:100,000); police officer (14:100,000); HIGH VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL WIRE INSTALLER(!!!!!!!!) (14:100,000); Taxi drivers (13:100,000); construction machinery operators (10:100,000), Electrician (10:100,000); Machinist/Machine Repair (9:100,000).
To wit, being pregnant in the United States is so dangerous that if it were a job, it would rank 10th in terms of on-the-job fatalities.
The only jobs more dangerous are: rancher, truck driver, steel worker, refuse/recyclables collector, roofers, pilots, and the dudes on Deadliest fucking Catch.
But out of curiosity, you two — how many loggers, fishermen, and steel workers do you two associate with?
Hey @thespectacularspider-girl
Gonna answer this any time before the heat death of the universe?
So, first of all, you’re shadowbanned sitewide because you do not show up in anyone’s notes (unless they follow you). The only way I even knew this post existed was because I saw someone else share it in my notifications and tag it with hashtags I found odd.
Second, this doesn’t address my actual point at all and is, once again, just an example of you gazing at your own navel.
But it’s hilarious because if we actually look at your links you find this:
“Death while pregnant” or “within one year of the end of pregnancy” and “irrespective of cause”
I know reading comprehension is something you’ve proven, time and time again, to be something you’re lacking but I’d have thought you’d actually take the time to read the articles you post.
This means that if a pregnant woman dies in car crash, she gets counted in the statistic. If she gets into a car crash 362 days after giving birth, she’s counted in the statistic.
How the fuck is that a useful metric to determine how dangerous it is? That’s beyond manipulative. So right up your alley, no surprise.
If you were to even remotely come close to actually comparing the two, you’d have to count “blue collar workers who die 3 hours before and after their shift” instead of on-the-job deaths.
Holy shit, you were desperate for me to see this that you tried to @ me? I appreciate it. Thank you. No, really. I’m going to thank you because if you didn’t actually kick up a stink I would’ve never seen this absolutely pathetic attempt to manipulate information.
So now everyone can see that this statistic you’ve tried to cite is bullshit, which means that the next time someone like you tries it, they’ll know it’s wrong.
If you’re such a radfem maybe you should shut up, stop posting and leave the internet. Because you’re clearly doing more harm to your cause than good.
Yeah, oh well. Shadowbanned on Tumblr… I don’t even grok what that means. I’m on mobile; we didn’t have functionality in the first place
As for your point — you’re right? Any Non-Zero maternal mortality rate is too high. But your response is predicated on motherhood being less dangerous than a blue collar job.
You were incorrect there, as the data shows.
As for “irrespective of cause”, the context matters. If you’d read the source, you’d know that. For instance, they mean, “irrespective of cause (so a blood clot, post-partum haemorrhage, or even suicide as a result of post-partum depression) would all count.
You’ll notice that you’re also choosing one line from one definition; what’s wrong with the other two? They clearly tie the medical sequelae back to the act of pregnancy.
“I know reading comprehension lalala”
That’s an ad hominem argument. Moving on.
“That would mean a woman who dies of car crash 362 after pregnancy-“
Incorrect, which the study demonstrates and clearly identifies as non-equivalent. That particular definition is a broad tent in order to capture the broad scope of maternal health concerns affecting women in the USA.
If you’d gone into the study you’d notice that they use the term “pregnancy-related death” — which is the much stricter definition presented in the second example. “Maternal mortality” is also used, and that clearly demarcates itself.
But that doesn’t make as good of a “gotcha”, I know. Bummer for you.
As for blue collar comparisons — no, we don’t. Although given the fact that many of these blue collar professions (police service, fire service, oil field workers/fisheries/logging) do live on the site, that’s already built into the risk factor.
Hell, shop foremen on more remote sites will sleep over as well — and pilots will bring two crews on long hauls so they can rest mid-leg.
The data remains. Maternal mortality in the United States is 17:100,000. It is, commensurately, one of the top ten deadliest professions in the USA.
And sure, I @‘d you. After all, you haven’t debunked any of the information here, just taken umbrage at a single definition, and bolded some text and attempted to insult me.
That’s not a rebuttal, that’s a tantrum. Try addressing the data.
It’s really boringinteresting when these misogynists accuse women of having a reading comprehension issue and then turn around to clearly demonstrate they have a reading comprehension issue.
