Are we asking too much of fathers at birth?

[pamamidwife]

Are we basically demanding that a man go against his biological processes during labor and birth by requesting that he coach, be knowledgeable about the birth process, and advocate for us?

I'd love to get feedback on this article: http://www.michelodent.com/news.php?id=10

Keep an open mind, and really try to let go of your own experience and that of what we've been conditioned to believe is "best".

[Storm Bride]

I wish I had something useful to say. But, all I can say is that the worst moments of my life were when they sent my ex away (to tell me that baby #1 was breech and I'd need a section) and when they sent dh away (to put in my anesthetic for baby #2).

I'd rather give birth with just dh there than with any other attendants. And, while I've contacted a midwife to discuss the possibility of switching caregivers, I'm none to convinced that I want any women there. I'd much prefer to have whatever people have to be around me be male than female.

In fact...if I trusted my body the way some of the women here do, I wouldn't even consider having anybody but dh present for a birth. I really don't know if that's good for him, though...I think he finds the whole thing very stressful.

[BusyMommy]

I realize this sounds trite but it totally depends on the man. My dh had no reservations, hesitations or baggage and thus was my strength. He was my only "attendant" except during pushing when the mw helped. He was eduated and aware. Otherwise, I may agree that he could have been a hindrance, distraction, etc.

Truly, I believe this to be so true:

an electronic environment tends to make the birth more difficult and has no other effects on statistics than to increase the rates of C-sections.

[katja]

Wow, what an interesting article. I have to admit, I really didn't want dh around during labor and childbirth. He wouldn't hear of it, however, and so there he was while I was in some pretty compromising positions. I didn't find his presence helpful at all, and it made me a little uncomfortable. I remember wanting female companionship during my labor, and felt kind of abandoned by the midwife and her assistant, who spent most of the time taking notes. I guess next time I'll get a doula and just have dh start boiling water!

BTW, it's not that I don't love him, and I was happy to have him around as soon as dd was out.

I don't know about the loss of intimacy that Odent mentions. It sounds like he's just speaking anecdotally. It sounds a little simplistic to me.

[Storm Bride]

The only effect on our sex life was that of recovering from surgery, combined with lack of sleep. There was no sign at all of anything else going wrong. Of course, I didn't labour with dd.

[captain crunchy]

I realize this sounds trite but it totally depends on the man

I completely agree...but I will say, that if it seems like the numbers are skewed heavily towards husbands/fathers being a hinderence-- I would wager to say that may have more to do with how childbirth is presented in this society...on every television show (the frantic father acting incompetent and nutty) -- the fact that not many men at all are raised with information regarding women, their bodies, how they work etc...

That having been said, I completely trust my husband implicitly and I believe he will be SUCH an asset to me during labor...however...I will admit though, one of the reasons I decided to go against a UC which we were considering (besides that this is our first baby) was that my husband expressed being uncomfortable with being SOLEY responsible (besides me) to bring our child into the world----especially since he has very little knowledge about it (besides of course, these past months of us learning and educating ourselves together) ....and I respect that, so we will have a midwife...

Anyway, nature or nurture, I don't know, but I would err on the side of nurture... I think the biological need to protect your young would lend itself to a man natually wanting to assist to keep his baby alive...though I feel naturally, women can serve women in a unique, special way men can't---if soley due to the fact that they aren't women and can't give birth...but I think it is way more environment and culture than it is biological....

just my opinion! Sorry, I was so longwinded... I was a Sociology major!!

Of course, an Anthropology major would have a different perspective I imagine!!

[annakiss]

I think that in this particular culture, knowing whether the husband is really an asset or a hinderance is impossible. We've taken birth so far away from nature, and we've changed even how our societies are set up in such a big way that there are too many other factors, I believe, affecting birthing women that the husband factor becomes a very minor issue, if an issue at all. Even in a homebirth, midwives are typically hired, but are strangers, not someone of the community that we're deeply familiar with. Our communities are so large, so disconnected. My mother was my midwife for my first birth and everyone at my birth was a trusted friend. Did it affect my labor? Who knows. My husband was there and having him there was the most important piece of the puzzle. He is for me on an emotional level something very different from a girlfriend or an aunt or grandmother, and by that I mean someone I trust deeper. I guess when it comes to my husband, having him there is unquestionable. He doesn't talk. That job, I suppose is very much for the women. What does he know about what it feels like anyway? But he's there just as something to lean on. Someone to fetch things and provide physical support. I don't think it hinders anything. But then maybe this is supporting the article rather than opposing it. I think I'm confusing myself. My head hurts. :LOL

At any rate, I agree that it depends on the guy and also his scope of responsibility during labor and birth. Coaching, I can see, would be a hinderance for sure. Being there as support though is something different.

[alegna]

I've read this article before and I find it interesting. It's quite an interesting idea but didn't hold true in my case. Some thoughts follow though.

We have lost our tribes. Humans are meant to be a tribal creature. As such there are things that women in a tribe do and things that men do (there are other divisions also, not based on gender) but having lost our tribes, we have lost our tribal relations with others. I do not as a rule feel very comfortable with women. Complex. Lots of reasons. But there it is. I do feel very comfortable with my dh. I needed someone in labor who could understand what I needed without words. With a look or a gesture would know what I wanted and didn't want and get it for me. In a different time and place I would have had women friends who could have done that. I don't though.

I think perhaps we evolved originally to have women around at birth (and no men) as many mammals follow that pattern. However I think our current society has skewed (and ruined) that pattern.

Even patterns have exceptions though. Growing up we had a male cat who was without a doubt a midwife. Every mama cat in labor had him in attendance.... lol.

Interesting reading and thoughts though.

-Angela

[flapjack]

I think Odent has a point. During my first labour (where I was happily, newly married) I didn't want company. Didn't want to be touched, stroked, or be near at all- and my husband of the time got slight criticism, later, from both my mother and the midwives for occupying himself on the computer whilst I was labouring upstairs. The labour was slow, steady, and virtually painless.
My second labour was with my stillborn daughter. He was clingy, I was in shutdown, and the labour was incredibly painful. Admittedly, this is normal for me once my waters have broken (based on labour the third time) but... I don't know. Draw your own conclusions. And with Isaac, whilst it was a faster (10 hours start to finish) labour, it was very hard work- and again, guess who was "supporting" me? This was at the point that the marriage started to degenerate.
This time round, I have a new partner, and I'm planning on having much more support during labour, should I want it. He knows that I'm not normally sociable during labour, and I think he's prepared to deal with it.

[Mothra]

Are we basically demanding that a man go against his biological processes during labor and birth by requesting that he coach, be knowledgeable about the birth process, and advocate for us?

Exactly what "biological process" is being subverted by a father's presence at the birth of his child, knowledge about the process of birth (the very process by which he arrived in the world), and advocating for the health of the mother of his child and his child?

We're not talking about nature, we're talking about culture. I think that is an important distinction to be made. We have language, we have culture, we use tools to construct the buildings we give birth in (whether it be a hospital, an apartment building, or a hut in the African bush).

I agree with much of what annakiss said. If it is a hinderance, which I don't believe it is in most cases, who's to say that our culture didn't create this hinderance?

I also hate the "coach" language that permeates the natural childbirth literature and discussion. I don't need a coach. This ain't a sporting event. I need support, not cheerleaders. My husband's secondary job, after providing me with emotional support, was to advocate for me. That included quelching any cheerleading that might have broken out amongst the nurses. Luckily there was none of that crap during my last two births.

I could not imagine giving birth without my husband there. I didn't like for him to talk to me or touch me, but I needed him there. I wanted him to be there to listen to me breathe and just witness what I was going through. He left the room to go pee when I was in labor with my second child and his absence was alarming. I started to panic for the first and only time during that labor.

I'm very, very skeptical of the author's ideas about the effects of seeing a woman give birth on the sexual relationship of a couple.
Today I am amazed by the great number of couples who split off some years after a wonderful birth according to the modern criteria. What is a "great number"? How can one separate the millions of other factors involved into a new life being brought into a family from the birth itself?

More often than not I heard that the father was in bed, because he had a tummy ache, or a back ache, or a flu, or a tooth ache, or simply because he was "drained", as a mother told me. This is a phenomenon I'm completely unfamiliar with. My gut reaction to this portion of the article is just mean, so I won't share it.

I don't think it is possible or even advisable to let go of my own experience. How else could I evaluate this article, or anything else, without taking into consideration my own experiences? What else do I have?

[pamamidwife]

Wow, Mothra. I think that your feelings on this article were similar to mine when I first read it years ago.

However, having men at birth is a relatively new phenomenon - even in other cultures. I am not saying that a man cannot be at birth. What I'm saying is that men think differently from a laboring woman, and in order for birth to move the hormones correctly, she needs to be "lost" basically in her body. Men do think differently in that most are analytical, nervous around things they cannot control, etc.

Originally Posted by Mothra

We're not talking about nature, we're talking about culture. I think that is an important distinction to be made. We have language, we have culture, we use tools to construct the buildings we give birth in (whether it be a hospital, an apartment building, or a hut in the African bush).

Ah, but see, the biodynamics of birth are not about culture. Every woman experiences the same hormonal rushes, the same shifts in awareness in labor, etc. So, in essence, the nature of labor and birth is not about culture. Culture has bastardized the natural flow of labor, sure. But, I'm talking about the biodynamic, natural, physiological aspect of birth, not about home vs hospital or attended vs not. I'm talking about the fine orchestra of hormones and the role of the primal brain vs the logical, new brain in birth. It's organic, not about societal expectations.

Ideally, if we really want a world in which there is little violence and true empowerment, we'd recognize the perfect system of the body instead of trying to co-opt "indepedence" and "control" through a biomedical way of thought.



Aside from the sexual point of view (which I don't share), I have to agree with what he's talking about. Biologically meaning that I don't think that many men are clamoring to sign up for childbirth classes or really want to read books about birth. I think that is a woman's invention - and requirement of our partners.

I see what you're saying in some ways, but anthropologically and biologically it makes sense.

I also think that perhaps by having the father EXPECTED to DO during birth, we're totally dismissing his own sacred transition to fatherhood. I think that many men miss out on so much because of this idea that they need to be the defender, coach, and person to help create a good birth experience.

Interesting responses, that's for sure. I'm enjoying this dialogue.

[kama'aina mama]

They didn't come close to addressing the primary issue, IMO... which is that in this highly medicalized and often adversarial birth environment, when your partner is likely to be your 'next of kin' and be in the hotseat to make medical decisions for you... there is no choice really, but to educate him and involve him. My DH did a damn good job, alone with me for about 7 hours. The midwife barely got to our place in time to catch the baby. But I cannot honestly say that the situation did not change our relationship... and maybe not for the better.

[kama'aina mama]

pam, we crossposted. I think until we can rid ourselves of the need for a defender it is hard to dispense of the other (possibly forced) roles. No?

[Mothra]

Originally Posted by kama'aina mama

They didn't come close to addressing the primary issue, IMO... which is that in this highly medicalized and often adversarial birth environment, when your partner is likely to be your 'next of kin' and be in the hotseat to make medical decisions for you... there is no choice really, but to educate him and involve him.

Word.

Ah, but see, the biodynamics of birth are not about culture. Every woman experiences the same hormonal rushes, the same shifts in awareness in labor, etc. So, in essence, the nature of labor and birth is not about culture. Culture has bastardized the natural flow of labor, sure. But, I'm talking about the biodynamic, natural, physiological aspect of birth, not about home vs hospital or attended vs not. I'm talking about the fine orchestra of hormones and the role of the primal brain vs the logical, new brain in birth. It's organic, not about societal expectations.

This is true, but it doesn't speak to the biological process of becoming a father. There isn't a biological process to becoming a father outside of the act that preceeds the birth by approximately 40 weeks, give or take.

I'm tired, but I'll definitely be thinking on this more. I think kama hit the nail on the head, though. I think that the father being a part of the birth is ideal for the mother, it was in my case. I think that a situation that allows the father to be a witness to the event and show love and support for the mother is a good development for everyone involved. There will always be exceptions, but I don't think it is inherently a bad thing. We do lots of things in this culture that more "primitive" cultures don't do and they aren't all bad.

[pamamidwife]

Originally Posted by kama'aina mama

pam, we crossposted. I think until we can rid ourselves of the need for a defender it is hard to dispense of the other (possibly forced) roles. No?

oh, totally. I mean, most women - including those with homebirth midwives or even those with UC births - do not really get to experience the pure intuitive sense of giving birth. There are distractions that keep them in the neocortex (new brain).

I wonder, too, if women's inuition is something that men do not feel comfortable with because their "sixth sense" is more about prowess or hunter type of knowledge? It's starting to sound really weird right now because it's so late at night, so I apologize.

But, yes, in today's birth world, we have to make our partners our defenders. Which is really sad because I think so many of them fail at the role according to our expectations. How can a man be expected to take on such a big power like a hospital and doctors? Should he be expected to? Or are we placing women in danger just by having them feel the need to be defended or on the defensive in birth?

We are so far away from true, primal birth. There are so many directors, managers, coaches, and attendants. Surely this impacts "normal" birth - and could be a reason why so many births "need" further interference/interventions.

[kama'aina mama]

Yes! All so true! I gave birth at home and did get pretty primal... which I'm not sure I could have if I hadn't educated the piss out of my DH before hand so I could sign off mentally and say... "Okay: making decisions isn't my job today except for what I want to have happen/ feel in the next 60 seconds." I really can't imagine choosing a doctor for birth.

[Artisan]

I agree with many points. Men are *not* (instinctively, biologically) birthers. Men just don't *get* it on a primal level the way women do. I don't say this in a male-bashing way. I have a son. I love my husband -- he was an integral part of my births -- but in retrospect, I can see that my need for him during labor was mostly about the need for grounding and support (OK, and backrubs and juice).

I agree with annakiss when she said that we are meant to birth with people we know, and often today our husbands are the only person we know well at our birth. We cling to the familiar when we're deep in laborland.

I know that if I had had a trusted doula at my birth, someone I knew well and was comfortable around, my DH would have been welcome, but I would not have leaned on him as heavily as I did. I found him most annoying during labor. He is a good guy, smart and well-educated, wants to help. Took the classes and read the books. But when I was having back labor and needed him to press really hard right *there* on and off for hours, I felt like I was annoying him, which in turn affected me. He is a fixer, as most men are. He wants to make things better. And he has that mentality of, "What can I do? Tell me what I can do to fix this for you! Do you want something to drink? Here, you're hot! Let me see if I can get the ceiling fan to work for you! Dang, the ceiling fan is not working! Well, then I will FIX IT!!!! Don't mind me, I'm just going to fix the ceiling fan here... ignore the beeping. I will have it up and running soon!" That's what I mean. He was well intentioned, but had no primal knowledge of what I needed. I was hot, but I definitely did not need him climbing all over trying to fix the stupid fan.

Does that make sense? It's early here and I'm only on 1/2 cup of coffee.

[Patchfire]

My first initial response just to the thread title was 'yes.' Then I actually opened the thread and read it (and the article).

I think it does sort of go back to the fact that we've lost our tribes. When I had ds, I had a doula, but not a paid one. She's one of my best friends, and it was her that I leaned on while dh ran around doing stuff (setting up the pool, etc.). And then my mom was there, and it was my friend's hands and my mom's hands that I was holding and while I wouldn't have wanted dh to leave, I definitely didn't want him 'coaching' me or anything like that. I can't imagine how I would've reacted during labor if he told me to do any particular thing!

My friend who served as my doula is going to be starting midwifery training of some type soon. I'm hoping that she'll be able to be my midwife next time, since I like these nice big birth intervals. And that idea is something I really like - a tribe of 'my people,' even though I did love my midwife this time, she wasn't someone I otherwise knew, she was still someone I hired. I think that if we had a return to more community, more tribe, then there wouldn't be near the emphasis on the father - but I could be wrong.

[BensMom]

Interesting question. DH was pretty useless at my hospital birth, but I chalk that up to the fact that neither of us were truely prepared for what needed to be done in order to have a normal birth. We were tired, dealing with an induction and just allowed the nurses to take control of the situation. When my epidural moved and I was in terrible pain, I wanted pressure on my back and DH provided it. He kept wanting to do *something else* to fix things, but all I needed was for him to be that rock - just stay exactly where you are and keep doing what you are doing.

And after DS was born, DH did come down with an awful illness. He was exhausted and drained and I just assumed his immune system just shut down (and all those hospital germs!)

This time we are having a HB and I am not sure what I want his role to be. I don't need him worrying about little things, stressing me out. I will have a doula and hope that she can help give him instructions. I think that will make him happy - do this now - kind of thing. But he has never experienced an unmedicated birth and I am just not sure how best to truely prepare him. Even I was not prepared until I experienced with my doula clients. All the reading in the world isn't the same as the real thing. I really do like the idea of gicing him several tasks to do to keep himself busy and so he can feel useful.

This is an interesting discussion though.

[OnTheFence]

Interesting article.

Personally I was happy to know that I had a willing, participating partner when I was preparing to birth naturally, and i am certainly glad he was there for both of my c-sections, but for different reasons. We discussed a lot of things about birth before hand, like our sex life, the impact it might have on it, etc. He wasn't going to be the only person "attending me" which probably was a big factor for both of us, there was always the knowledge I would have my sister there acting as a "doula" and that I would have a supportive team of women as needed.

For my last c-section, his presence was not nearly as important as my sisters. In fact, he was just an "observer". I didn't want him caring for me at all, I didn't need him there for me, I needed him to observe and take on a different role. When planning this birth, his role is the same, and he has even offered to give up his role for my best friend to be in the OR because she wants to see a "real live" csection badly.

*If* for say I was/do/try to have a vaginal birth, at this point in my life I would want him to be there, but as an observer.