A Belly Full of Fire, Part Three: Which Direction Do We Swim?

This is the third post of my five-part series on infertility advocacy. Catch up on Part One: Advocate or Abdicate and Part Two: The Wounded Healer.

Allow me to tell you a story.

---

A village by the river is thrown into crisis as babies suddenly fill the river, crying and gasping against the strong current. Being such a small, closely-knit community, the village instantly comes together into action. The villagers run to the banks, using nets and rope to try and pull the babies from the water. Some men cast off their shoes and shirts and dive right into the frigid waters, grabbing as many babies as they can as dozens rush by them. The villagers are only so many in number, and the babies keep coming. They cannot possibly rescue them all.

Some villagers suggest heading upstream to see what is causing all of the babies to be sent down the river. But other villagers shout above the chaos: "No! We must stay here and save the babies we can!" And other weary villagers climb up and collapse on the riverbanks, soaked to the bone and exhausted from trying to save so many babies. "What's the point?" they pant, "We can't save all the babies."

A party heads up the river. Others continue to dive in. Some are simply too exhausted to go on. The party returns from upstream, looking haunted and their faces ashen. "There is an evil king directing his army to throw his kingdom's babies into the river. We could overthrow his tyranny if we get enough of you to join us." The villagers argue about what to do next.

All the while, the babies continue to flow down the river helplessly, some scooped up, others unable to be saved. The villagers keep arguing. The babies keep coming.

---

A Belly Full of Fire, Part Three: Which Direction Do We Swim?

The above is a common allegory often used in upstream/downstream engagement models for active citizenship, philanthropy, development, social justice and activism. Is it an absolutely inappropriate analogy for infertility advocacy? Absolutely. But there's a wealth of insight to be found in this story.

The moral of the story is simple: action is necessary. The conundrum is also apparent: what action is most appropriate? Aye, there's the rub.

Let's break the villagers down into their various roles.

There are the villagers on the shore who dive right in and start scooping up babies. In the context of advocacy, these would be your social workers, your counselors. In the infertility community, these may be support group leaders or hotline operators. In the online world, it might be every single person who comments on news posted on the LFCA. This downstream approach suits best those people who feel compelled to respond immediately to the situation happening right in front of them.

Then there is the party that heads up the river and finds the terrible king. To solve this end of the crisis, they require a lot more manpower to fight the king and his army. In terms of advocacy, the upstream approach seeks to work towards solving the root of the problem. And the root of the problem is never an easy one to fix, because you're mostly dealing with cultural biases, social constructs, and institutionalized oppression.

Heavy, right? It's no easy task and should be pretty obvious as to why the upstream approach needs more than just one person to make any kind of noticeable change.

So how do we address the conundrum of which approach is truly the best?

Answer: you need both downstream and upstream approaches to advocacy to make systemic change. Thus, by default, you need one motivated person and then followers and compatriots to join with them. By spreading out your efforts to solve the immediate crises downstream and also sending efforts upstream to investigate and take aim at the root of the crises, you cast the widest net possible for solutions for change at both levels.

Are you more of a downstream advocate, doing what you can on the local, community levels, or are your more of an upstream advocate, fighting for change on a grander scale? It's not always that clear-cut of an answer, and you may be surprised to see how you can transform from one into the other. Take the story of Risa Levine, as featured in the SELF Magazine article I mentioned Thursday:

---

When patients do take up the cause, it can make a difference. Risa Levine, a 48-year-old attorney in New York City, endured 10 IVF cycles and four miscarriages, yet remains childless... Instead of withdrawing, she began making calls: Several years ago, outraged at the dearth of funding and research for infertility, Levine approached then Senator Hillary Clinton (D–N.Y.), who went to the CDC. As a result, in 2008 the agency issued a white paper that outlined the very need that Levine and other advocates want fulfilled: more money for more research... The CDC report paved the way for the federal government to develop a National Action Plan for infertility, says Maurizio Macaluso, M.D., chief of the women's health and fertility branch of the division of reproductive health at the CDC... After learning firsthand that the average cost of one round of IVF is $12,400, Levine lobbied her congressman, Anthony Weiner (D–N.Y.), who reintroduced the Family Building Act, a bill that calls for federally mandated insurance coverage for infertility... Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.) has introduced the Family Building Act to the Senate. "One person's passion matters," she says about Levine. (Source.)

---

Ms. Levine addressed a downstream need in her own journey. But as she advocated on a greater scale, her efforts swam further upstream, requiring the assistance of larger and higher levels of support. It's no surprise then that Ms. Levine has been awarded a Hope Award for Advocacy by RESOLVE for their Night of Hope Gala in September.

Another way to picture this, to take our minds off of babies rushing down a river, is to watch this short video of Derek Sivers' TED Talk on how to start a movement in under three minutes:



Key points from the video:

+ "The first follower is what transforms the lone nut into a leader."

+ "A movement must be public. It's important to show not just the leader, but the followers because you find that new followers emulate the followers, not the leader."

+ "Notice that as more people join in it's less risky, so those that were sitting on the fence before now have no reason not to."

+ "If you really care about starting a movement, have the courage to follow and show others how to follow."

+ "And when you find a lone nut doing something great, be the first one to have the guts to stand up and join in."

. . . . .

So now that you have an idea of what styles of advocacy exist, you can get a better of idea of at what level you're comfortable participating in advocacy efforts. Tomorrow I'll talk about what would be ideal outcomes for all of the hard work advocating for infertility awareness.

Stay tuned on Tuesday for A Belly Full of Fire, Part Four: In a Perfect World.

Photo by Jennifer Gensch via Flickr.