What do you guys think of this article? « Back to Group Discussions

[BroodyWoodsgal]

http://talkbirth.me/2012/02/10/all-that-matters-is-a-healthy-husband-or-why-giving-birth-matters/

I really liked it. The comparison didn't ring *quite* true at certain points, but all in all, I felt this was really fair and a good way to look at this.

[mudhugger]

I thought it was really interesting from the point of birth being an important milestone...like a rite of passage.  Good discussion starter.  I hear what she's saying.  Even though I'm a huge proponent of home birth, and I totally agree with her sentiments re: the stripping of power (and respect of choice) that often occurs in hospital birth -- I just don't think the analogy to a wedding is appropriate.  It's naive to think that there is no serious risk in birth...there just is and I think denying that demeans birthing a bit.  Committing to another person is huge and amazing and life-changing, but doesn't reach that crazy level of intensity that exists with bringing another human into it's world, with all of its beauty and pain.  So, overall, I'd say the article doesn't resonate with me.  Maybe if she created an analogy between an expert skydiver's jump plans being derailed by a team of people who "know better"...something like that :) my mind wouldn't be as critical. 

[BroodyWoodsgal]

Originally Posted by mudhugger 

I thought it was really interesting from the point of birth being an important milestone...like a rite of passage.  Good discussion starter.  I hear what she's saying.  Even though I'm a huge proponent of home birth, and I totally agree with her sentiments re: the stripping of power (and respect of choice) that often occurs in hospital birth -- I just don't think the analogy to a wedding is appropriate.  It's naive to think that there is no serious risk in birth...there just is and I think denying that demeans birthing a bit.  Committing to another person is huge and amazing and life-changing, but doesn't reach that crazy level of intensity that exists with bringing another human into it's world, with all of its beauty and pain.  So, overall, I'd say the article doesn't resonate with me.  Maybe if she created an analogy between an expert skydiver's jump plans being derailed by a team of people who "know better"...something like that :) my mind wouldn't be as critical. 

That's kind of how I felt. I totally love where she is coming from...but the wedding thing doesn't resonate with me because a) I was wed by a lady named Matooka Moonbear on the mossy banks of a river in front of three people....it took me all of five minutes to plan this ceremony...and b) there IS real and serious risk that can happen in birth, it TOTALLY CAN end up in a scenario where someone you love more than anything (or yourself) ends up in danger, hurt or even dead.

I have thought and thought and I can't think of any ceremony, ritual or life event that really could replace "marriage" in this article EXCEPT for birth!

But the idea, especially considering the GOBS of money and time some people spend on weddings, is a good one.
 

[calapitters]

I get where she is coming from.  I was very young when my oldest was born and I had no idea about birth or my options.  Just about all those things happened to me and it was a huge let down.  It took me a few days to even begin to bond with her.  Like many women, I didn't realize that putting myself in the hands of "experts" would increase my risk for complications. I did as I was told, even though I didn't want to and it was very uncomfortable.  

She is taking the worse case scenarios to make the point that women's choices are being ignored to their (the moms') detriment.  As a first time mom whose biggest transition was from daughter to wife (assuming mom is married...which I wasn't...twice, haha), I think the wedding comparison may just hit the nail on the head and get her to think about birth in a new light.  Daughter to wife, wife to mother.  These are huge transitions.  Why should one be so honored and respected and full of different ways and choices, yet the other (arguably more important and life changing) be dictated by strangers? 

[MamaInTheDesert]

I really liked the article. I felt like the analogy between a healthy husband a healthy baby was a good one. The "interventions" she mentioned in the "wedding" are routine for births where there are no complications. I think it's more about the rite of passage being marked, honored and respected. In an emergency situation with calm and collected professionals you would still hope to have someone explain to you what is going on, rather than medications being forced upon you, your baby being ripped from your arms, and basically being left to wonder if it had to be that way. I understand that sometimes there isn't "time" for that, but in that kind of situation you hope that after the fact you don't get platitudes of "you got your healthy baby didn't you? Now calm down."

For me, the wedding scenario worked. Women are encouraged in our society to mark special occasions with special events. (Weddings, Birthdays -- especially sweet 16s or quinceneras, anniversaries, etc.) Why should we not also mark the special occasion of our birthing day? Why should we not have a pretty outfit (or lack of one), the venue of our choice, the foods that we like, the guest list of our choosing, etc.? It's a special day, and we deserve to treat it as such. Let me once again say that there are scenarios which could "ruin" the event out of necessity, but in what we call a normal healthy birth the guests of honor (mom and baby) should do the dictating.

All that being said.. there was one part of the article that bothered me. That was when the WIFE was given an IV instead of being able to drink juice. It was just a continuity thing for me. The rest of the article was focused on keeping the husband healthy, and for that one instant it switched to focusing on the wife. If we were look at the wife in the article representing the husband figure in a birth, the husband wouldn't be told that 40% of husbands receive surgery before leaving the hospital.

[KristaDJ]

Originally Posted by MamaInTheDesert 

I really liked the article. I felt like the analogy between a healthy husband a healthy baby was a good one. The "interventions" she mentioned in the "wedding" are routine for births where there are no complications. I think it's more about the rite of passage being marked, honored and respected. In an emergency situation with calm and collected professionals you would still hope to have someone explain to you what is going on, rather than medications being forced upon you, your baby being ripped from your arms, and basically being left to wonder if it had to be that way. I understand that sometimes there isn't "time" for that, but in that kind of situation you hope that after the fact you don't get platitudes of "you got your healthy baby didn't you? Now calm down."

For me, the wedding scenario worked. Women are encouraged in our society to mark special occasions with special events. (Weddings, Birthdays -- especially sweet 16s or quinceneras, anniversaries, etc.) Why should we not also mark the special occasion of our birthing day? Why should we not have a pretty outfit (or lack of one), the venue of our choice, the foods that we like, the guest list of our choosing, etc.? It's a special day, and we deserve to treat it as such. Let me once again say that there are scenarios which could "ruin" the event out of necessity, but in what we call a normal healthy birth the guests of honor (mom and baby) should do the dictating.

All that being said.. there was one part of the article that bothered me. That was when the WIFE was given an IV instead of being able to drink juice. It was just a continuity thing for me. The rest of the article was focused on keeping the husband healthy, and for that one instant it switched to focusing on the wife. If we were look at the wife in the article representing the husband figure in a birth, the husband wouldn't be told that 40% of husbands receive surgery before leaving the hospital.

I totally agree with all of this except the last bit. In the article the bride does not represent the husband at a birth, she represents the mother at the birth, right? The groom represents the baby and the bride is the birthing woman unless I missed something. 

[MamaInTheDesert]

I thought the husband represented the birthing woman. He got his heart monitored, had a monitor strapped to his chest, received a spinal tap, continues to be hospitalized for monitoring. And minus the juice bit, the wife stands passively by in what I assumed to be the husband's role of donning the blue gown and being on the sidelines.

But, you know what, I read it again as the husband being the baby, and I guess it does make sense that way. Especially the "you want a healthy husband (baby) out of all of this, don't you?" That's probably how the author intended it to be read, and I was mistaken.

Edited by MamaInTheDesert - 2/12/12 at 9:41pm

[KristaDJ]

Originally Posted by MamaInTheDesert 

I thought the husband represented the birthing woman. He got his heart monitored, had a monitor strapped to his chest, received a spinal tap, continues to be hospitalized for monitoring. And minus the juice bit, the wife stands passively by in what I assumed to be the husband's role of donning the blue gown and being on the sidelines.

See I though that was a pretty big point she was making. In hospitals the birthing woman is often made to feel like there is nothing she can do and she's just watching it all unfold like everyone else is. The mother is usually drugged and immobilized until she is really on the sidelines of her own birth and it's made to be all about the baby and the hospital staff. 
It is interesting how people can read the same thing and get such very different interpretations of it. I wonder how many others saw it that way :-) 
 

[jesshrehor]

I think the other major point that the author was going for is that when things don't go as planned at a wedding people are sympathetic.  When things don't go as planned at a birth, they're often not very sympathetic.  It's normal to be disappointed or upset when careful plans are ruined.  I was annoyed by some of the things that happened at my wedding.  That doesn't mean my marriage is less real or meaningful, but I was quite annoyed at the time and it still irks me if I think about it over 7 years later.  It was an important event and I expected the people we hired to do their jobs as promised.  While nothing disastrous happened, I don't think it was wrong for me to be annoyed that they didn't play the right song for my father-daughter dance.  Birth, in my opinion, is a far more intense experience, and the feelings of disappointment are probably far more intense when things don't go according to plan.  Especially when someone else makes decisions for you.  A mother has the right to be upset when something doesn't go right.  It doesn't mean that she doesn't love her baby or isn't happy it's healthy.  And having people say things like "just be happy you have a healthy baby" doesn't make her feelings go away.  It just makes her feel dismissed.