New Posts  All Forums:
 

Ina May on UC? - Page 3

post #41 of 52
Wow. Can I point you *again* to your own sig line?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
your "assertion" that you stand by...a series of bizarre statements...unless you're implying that i'm judging women (midwives or those who would utilize them) for their choice.
But thanks for referring to my concept of birth as "a series of bizarre statements."
post #42 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
also, isn't it possible for a woman to see birth as a 'female act' and a 'sexual act' and a 'spiritual act' and a 'family act' and a 'primal act' and a myriad of other types and kinds of 'acts' all at once?
Absolutely. I think it depends what you mean by each of these descriptors. For example, if birth is sexual because it is part of the procreational nature of sex, doesn't that rather leave homosexual sex out in the cold?

I certainly regard sex and a spiritual act and a sexual act. It's primal as well.

I just think that to use the whole "birth is a sexual act" argument to explain UC is oversimplistic. For example, if/when I UC, I will not want my DH present. Depending on various circumstances (mostly the position of the baby) I might want a female friend present. Most likely I'd be alone. Does this make birth akin to masturbation?

Now, I have no problem with sharing a sexual experience with another woman (and indeed, at my daughter's birth, I did), but it was sexual it its involvement of hormones and genitals, not as an expression of sexual love, which is to me the first thing I thing of when I think of a sex act. Sex with another woman, as with a man, is the sharing of sexual love with a partner in an act of creating unity. Birth, in a way, creates a disunity as the baby seperates from the mother for the first time. Sharing a birth experience is certainly sexual but I have a hard time seeing it as a sex act in that same unifying way.
post #43 of 52
no, it wasn't your concept of birth that is a 'series of bizarre statements' but that the statements didn't fit the point--and that was bizarre.

also, don't assume that i'm not at peace when i respond to your posts.
post #44 of 52
i just think that to use the whole "birth is a sexual act" argument to explain UC is oversimplistic.

i just don't understand when this ever came into this conversation. we were not explaining our reasons for UCing in this post stream, but instead discussing Ina May's perspective of UC via FLB's letter in response to statements that she made in a magazine.

thus, i don't understand what it's relevance to the post stream is, why this is relevant to the assertion that "midwives aren't anti-UC because they are concerned about loosing clientele," and why you've assigned this argument to me.

for me, birth is a sex act in part and my preference is to not have sex with people other than my husband. but, birth is also many other things, and i have no qualms with utilizing a midwife if i think it would be beneficial or necessary for me--and i feel likewise about OB care.

what i don't get is how all of these things are relevant to the discussion.
post #45 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by tie-dyed View Post
For example, if birth is sexual because it is part of the procreational nature of sex, doesn't that rather leave homosexual sex out in the cold?
I may be misunderstanding you, but I'm not seeing how that follows. Birth can be sexual, and I can still enjoy sex for its own sake.

Quote:
I just think that to use the whole "birth is a sexual act" argument to explain UC is oversimplistic. For example, if/when I UC, I will not want my DH present. Depending on various circumstances (mostly the position of the baby) I might want a female friend present. Most likely I'd be alone. Does this make birth akin to masturbation?
Maybe it's your notion of what constitutes a sexual act that's oversimplistic. When I say that I am a sexual being that doesn't translate exactly to: I have sex with my husband and I masturbate. It doesn't even translate to: and I also flirt and wear revealing clothing, or whatever it is the person does that culture associates with sex/sexuality. It's something much more elemental than that.

Quote:
Birth, in a way, creates a disunity as the baby seperates from the mother for the first time.
My experience, having had an undisturbed birth, was that the physical severing of the umbilical cord was incidental. My baby and I were still connected in every other sense; there was no disunity whatsoever. In our motherbaby unit (which I see as having been normal, if not the norm) the baby did not initiate separation until some time well after the fourth trimester, and even then it was in very gradual stages.
post #46 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
no, it wasn't your concept of birth that is a 'series of bizarre statements' but that the statements didn't fit the point--and that was bizarre.
See, when you say "bizarre statements" the word "bizarre" modifies the word "statement." How again does "bizarre statements" not denigrate the statements?

Quote:
also, don't assume that i'm not at peace when i respond to your posts.
I guess I figured that "peace, peace and only peace" likely referred to the general fostering of peace. I guess I was wrong. It's pretty clear you're more interested in being right that in discussing UC at this point, so I'm gonna bow out of this discussion.
post #47 of 52
Great discussion! Yes, Jesse, Ina May is the midwife I was referring to in my article. I called her when I was writing my book. The word that best describes her attitude towards me at the time is "cold" and I don't think things would be any different if I spoke with her now. Back then she was one of my idols and I remember gushing to her about how much I luvvvved her book! Needless to say, when I finished my book I didn't ask her for an endorsement.

Her article in Midwifery Today was in direct response to an article I had written for MT ("Why Some Women Don't Want Midwives at Their Births" - I can't post a link but you can probably google it). Of course I found her article disturbing, but I wasn't surprised.

By the way, MT asked me to write that article. I didn't approach them, they approached me. And I had a word count I had to adhere to. I literally didn't have the space to address all of Ina May's concerns (even if I had wanted to). It actually wasn't even supposed to be a UC article, per se. It was supposed to be an article about why some women wouldn't want a midwife. And so I thought her criticism was unfair.
Laura
post #48 of 52
I don't think that midwives would be out of a job. I think there are still women who are not "there" in their journey yet and need to have support for their choices in order to get "there". That's, in my eyes, what midwives are for.

There are quite a few clients that I've had that have either went off on their own after letting me go to have UC births or have birthed UC after a homebirth with me in attendance. I'm not worried about losing my work, believe me. I've always said that if 90% of the world was birthing unhindered, gentle, unattended then I'd be happy working at our local health food store. It's not about DOING midwifery - it's about changing the transition of birth for women, babies and families. If more people chose to freebirth then that would mean a much happier, loving, gentle planet, wouldn't it? Who wouldn't want that??

It's interesting because when I interview with prospective clients, I bet I lose about 40% because of my hands-off approach (even some midwives in my area say they're "more hands-on than Pamela" because they believe that it's better). Some women are not even ready for THAT. But, it's ok because I know I've planted a seed - and given them something to think about. When they're ready, they'll have someplace to start.
post #49 of 52
is 'there' the place or idea that a woman would hold that birth is natural, wholesome and inherently safe?

anyway, here's how i think about these "numbers"--

if midwives state "every woman needs a midwife" then 100% of pregnant women get midwives, which means midwives get clients and will continue to get clients as long as clients believe that midwives are absolutely needed. "yes, birth is safe, if you have a midwife."

if midwives state "not everyone woman needs a midwife, but we are highly trained and available for those who do want or need one." then women will get the idea that they don't need midwives. the idea would be "women can birth safely on their own, but we're here if they need/want us." this might encourage them to UC--and say this encouragement means that only 50% of women use midwives.

midwives loose clients. maybe not in the present, but eventually, midwives loose clients.

this is not anti-midwife in any way. it's just the bear bones. if people could, for example, become educated with out going to school, does that not decrease the number of students in schools, and therefore decrease the need for teachers?

one of the reasons that my friend, who is a teacher, is so against homeschooling is "if everyone homeschooled their kids, or even half of the people homeschooled their kids, then i would likely be out of a job!" She's right, afterall. now, this isn't her whole reasoning--but it is part of that reasoning.

this isn't to say that being a teacher, being a midwife, or whatever is 'bad'--i think that school is a good idea in part because not everyone can or wants to homeschool. similarly, not everyone wants to or can UC, and thus midwifery and OB care are important.

but if more than half of the population of women decided that they prefered UC, then yes, ultimately midwives would loose clients. And if, after many generations, the precentages were 'only 10-15% of women who are pregnant utilize midwives" then that means that there are fewer clients to go around. The industry shrinks. Midwives loose clients.

So, in my opinion, it is one of the reasons why midwives, like OBs, hospitals, etc assert the "need" for their services in drastic ways (fueling fear of injury or death). they want to create job security. that's an aspect of it.

is midwifery a luxury? sadly, it is right now. i find that very upsetting. i wish that more insurance companies and that public assistance would support midwifery care. i find it very valuable for women and definately much better than a medical-model of birth. For any woman who doesn't want to UC or doesn't feel that she can, i fully support whatever decision that she makes--but i also wish that midwifery care were an option for her via her insurance or other form of coverage, and not an expense that might force her to choose something other than what she truly wants.
post #50 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by pamamidwife View Post
I don't think that midwives would be out of a job. I think there are still women who are not "there" in their journey yet and need to have support for their choices in order to get "there". That's, in my eyes, what midwives are for.

There are quite a few clients that I've had that have either went off on their own after letting me go to have UC births or have birthed UC after a homebirth with me in attendance. I'm not worried about losing my work, believe me. I've always said that if 90% of the world was birthing unhindered, gentle, unattended then I'd be happy working at our local health food store. It's not about DOING midwifery - it's about changing the transition of birth for women, babies and families. If more people chose to freebirth then that would mean a much happier, loving, gentle planet, wouldn't it? Who wouldn't want that??
This is EXACTLY the attitude I thoroughly love to see in midwives. And if more midwives thought this way (and if their actions followed this philosophy), then I would be a little more likely to acquiesce to my partner's wishes that I have a midwife attend my birth. But as it stands, most midwives don't feel this way or if they do, they're not allowed to act in complete compliance with their personal philosophies due to licensing strictures. Because of this, I am really uninterested in having a midwife present at my birth, especially here in Ontario where midwives tend to be highly medicalized.

Were I ever to be a midwife, this is the sort of midwife I would strive to be: someone who helps women get to a place where they feel comfortable in their autonomy. I'm so glad for midwives like you. Thank you for existing and doing the work you do!

With respect to Ina May, I used her books as a much-needed stepping stone. They were the first books I read on the topic of homebirth. Since then, I've done a tonne more research and soul-searching. I've looked back on her books and can't help but feel a bit repulsed at her actions and attitudes throughout all the birth stories. She's got great information, all of which has reaffirmed my choice to UC. Gotta love the irony...
post #51 of 52
My midwife/dear friend is in her late 50's. She has been around quite a while and delivered almost 700 babes.

The only way that she has become more 'medicalized' (for lack of a better word) is in meeting state licensing requirements. The requirements for midwives have gotten quite ridiculous, even to the point of causing her to want to retire early several times because they tend to make mws more invasive than she wants to be.

Maybe there are outside, governmental forces at work over a period of years?
post #52 of 52
Hi, everyone! I have to ask that everyone please keep the conversation to the original topic. Any topics that have come up during the discussion would best be spun-off into their own threads. Thanks

Any personal criticisms directed to specific individuals participating on this thread need to be taken to PM at this point or they will be removed in an effort to keep this thread on-topic and on the board.

Please feel free to PM me with any questions, concerns or comments