Wording « Back to Group Discussions

[Partaria]

Someone referred to me, recently, as a "cesarean mama."

It wasn't meant derisively. It was just matter of fact. Sensitive, even. As in "c-section mamas deserve recognition too." Which is a very nice thought, and one I agree with. But the wording got me thinking.

I think there are times when it's useful to talk about cesarean mamas as different from moms who've had vaginal births. For instance, if you're talking about what we need post-partum, yes. There is a big difference. Our bodies are healing from different experiences.

But beyond that, I honestly start resenting it a little.

Do we really have to keep talking about moms, cesarean moms, and other kinds of moms? Surrogate moms, adoption moms, who gives a ****? These categories seem like in most situations, they're just not helpful or useful.

Because if I'm a "cesarean mama" then what's that mean? I'm distinct from other mamas because of the way my son got here? Should I start calling women who've had "normal" (and don't get me started on deciding that one kind of birth is normal, and therefore by definition everything else calls in the silent label of abnormal) births "vagina moms?"

So I don't know. Maybe this is just my hang up. But I feel like maybe the next time someone refers to me as a cesarean mama, I'm going to say, thanks! And let me just say that on behalf of all cesarean mamas, we also have mad love for you vagina moms.

[CI Mama]

Oh, since you brought it up, can we please have a rant about "normal"??? Because I hate, hate, hate that word! Hated it before I got pregnant, hated it during every minute of my 33-hour labor, hate it now.

[rnra]

In my line of work, there is a type of language known as "People-first language."  I LOVE it!  It is taught in regards to discussing/interacting with people who have disabilities, but it completely applies in this situation.

The idea is that everyone is a person first, and it is inappropriate to put any qualification on their personhood.

You do not say...

• Jane has a deaf son.
• Ben's mentally ill.
• How is your autistic son doing?

You do say...

• Jane has a son who is deaf.
• Ben has a mental illness.
• How is your son with autism doing?

It's a subtle shift in language, but it makes a big difference.  They are a person first.

In the land of mothering.com and other like-minded places, this language would probably be great as well.  I agree that in most situations, there is no need to bring up the mode of delivery.  However, when it is necessary for the discussion, you are not a "cesarean mama" you are a "mama who had a cesarean."  See the difference?  You're a mama first, regardless of how/where/why/what got you there.  

[CI Mama]

The "people first" approach is an improvement, for sure. And it also makes it clear that there's no reason to bring it up unless there's a reason to bring it up, if that makes sense. So, most of the time, I'd just be a "mama"...I'd only be a "mama who had a cesarean" when there was some topic at hand that was about the cesarean.

My main beef with any labeling is that people pour their own interpretations into it. So, for example, I've had people assume that because I had a c-section, it must have been a scheduled c-section. I've had people assume that I must not have labored, since I had a c-section.

So, what's the word for "tried really hard to have a vaginal birth but heart-breakingly ended up with a c-section despite my best efforts"?

Just to be clear, I'm not knocking women who have scheduled c-sections or don't labor prior to their c-sections. If my experience has taught me anything, it's that I shouldn't pretend to know why a woman makes the birth choices that she makes or has the birth experience that she has.

I just hate it when I feel like a snap judgment is being made about my experience, based on one word.

[Amy@STL]

I completely agree. Maybe " a mama who had a unplanned caesarian" , but its almost like telling your life's story !