WOMEN should embrace the full pain of childbirth to bond with their babies instead of resorting to anaesthetic drugs, a leading male midwife has said.
UK professor Dr Denis Walsh said the pain of labour should be considered a “rite of passage” and a “purposeful, useful thing”.
Rebuttal
Now, as a general rule, I love men.
I love the funny little hairs that poke out of their ears when they get older. I love the way they take out the garbage and fix broken toys. I love their witty ripostes over beers in the pub.
But men should never – ever – opine on the pain of childbirth.
Even if they are doctors.
Excessive pain during childbirth can predispose women to post-natal depression, which actually inhibits bonding with the baby.
Most women want to have a natural birth. Once labour begins, though, things tend to go awry.
In other news BP Media has learned there is a campaign afoot to have Dr. Walsh pass a watermelon through his penis, suitably anaesthetized of course!
What a load. My wife gave birth twice the natural way, only because our first was 3 hours of labour (water breaking to delivery) and she didn't have time to get the epidural. Our second was 1.5 hours.
Thankfully (or not as the case may be), our third didn't engage and my wife was in back labour for him. She got the epidural then and loved it.
A guy named "Denis" really ought to stfu about labour. Have it natural, have the drugs. Whichever way you want. Let women choose and don't be smug jackass either way.
I'm guessing the good docotr is single…or soon will be.
The ideas of this doctor are common among conservative men. It is definitely a form of sexism, gender-bias, and patriarchy when men embrace these ideas that "they know more" about women than women do.
This is never more evident than on issues of sex, childbirth, and motherhood. In order to maintain their world view where men are superior, and women exist to serve their needs, some men embrace the fictionalized ideal of womanhood. This includes the notion that women must "endure" hardships that men may or may not similarly possess the ability to endure. Women are seen under this notion to be simultaneously "inferior" by virtue of their sex and reproductive function, and yet "superior" in the sense that they are held to a higher standard both morally and ethically.
It is from this worldview that it becomes entirely unacceptable for women to do things like:
- engage in sex that is "free" from consequences such as pregnancy or communicable disease
- have an abortion
- control how many children she has and how often
- and by extension, exercise "equal" decision-making ability with a man
This is the real agenda behind the anti-abortion/forced birth movement. Query any anti-choice person at length, and you will inevitably discover that among their chief concerns is the idea that women are "careless" (read "wonton") in their sexual behavior, and that pregnancy is a good deterrent to a woman engaging in sex. Their fear is that legal abortion offers a woman "an easy way out" of an otherwise perfectly acceptable sentence — "Babies are God's punishment for having sex."
Arcadia, I am a woman who supports and advocates for natural childbirth because it's an empowering experience (based on my own experiences and those of women I know who have made this choice), one which men never have the opportunity to experience. It's also scientifically proven to be safest for both mother and baby (which is where the "good doctor," who is actually a midwife, is coming from).
I'm also part of the pro-life movement. I certainly don't believe women are inferior to men in any way, or should endure more "hardships" than men (giving birth without pain medications is a challenge but is in no way a hardship). But then I guess, based on my own experiences and those of many people around me, I don't think it's possible for men or women to engage in consequence-free sex. You can get an abortion, but that's not consequence-free and most women I've met who admit to having had one have varying degrees of regret or sadness about it, whether it be their belief that a life was lost or just the potential for a life; that's not consequence free. I don't know anyone personally who feels that abortion is not the answer to unwanted pregnancy who also thinks that pregnancy is a good deterrent to a woman engaging in sex (as in, threaten her with pregnancy and she won't sleep around) or that "babies are God's punishment for having sex." God doesn't punish women (or men) with children, seriously, that's absurd. But they are the natural outcome to having sex. The real agenda behind the anti-abortion movement (as you call it) is to prevent the ending of a life and to support those who find themselves pregnant (impregnating someone) when they didn't want that. I personally know two people who would have been aborted (one was the product of a date rape before abortion was legal and the other person's mother and father were helped and supported so that they felt they could try to bring her into the world). I can't imagine this world without them. They are both kind, generous, creative women who have made and are making an positive impact on this world. The world is definitely a better place because they're here.