Pharyngula

Posted by: Alverant | July 16, 2009 10:53 PM

A dose of empathy would do him some good. Next I suggest finding some insurance agents who want to kick new mothers out of hospitals and finding a way to give them a bit more empathy as well.

Legally of course.

Posted by: Vestrati | July 16, 2009 10:58 PM

I thought a good deal of the pain was due to consequences of our evolution into upright walking animals and how that changed the pelvic area and how we are able to give birth? Not some coo-coo bananas pain junkie idea.

Posted by: Tsu Dho Nimh | July 16, 2009 11:07 PM

And Dr. Amy takes him to task:

http://skepticalob.blogspot.com/2009/07/updating-sexist-claim-that-pain-is-good.html

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 16, 2009 11:14 PM

Yeah, but the hat rack is such a poor imitation.

I'd suggest a deflated punching balloon (about a gallon's worth, and sturdy) which would be inflated in situ with fast-setting plastic. Once it sets, he can have the beautiful experience of pushing it out.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 16, 2009 11:31 PM

pineapples.

also, I suppose this man advocates against all anesthesia and pain killers for all war and hunting related accidents in men as well as adult circumcisions; you know, to provide that primeval "right of passage" experience.

no?

strange, that...

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 16, 2009 11:32 PM

Mrs Smoggy discovered an excellent way to assist me to empathize with her in the travails of childbirth.

In the interval between pushes, with something resembling half a basketball protruding from her nether parts and her perineum ripping asunder like the temple curtain on crucifixion day, she seized hold of my top lip and stretched it over my head until my cranium and both ears were covered.

Just before I fainted, I heard her remark that I should consider the experience a sympathetic labor.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 16, 2009 11:41 PM

Jill McKay, from Doncaster, said: "If he needs something to take his mind off the searing pain in his anus I'd be more than happy to take a pair of pliers to his testicles."

I...
This...

Posted by: Phoenix Woman | July 16, 2009 11:43 PM

Oh, and yes, the anti-anesthesia movement among male ob/gyns is indeed ground not just in sexism, but in Biblically-based sexism. Preachers in Victorian England inveighed against painkillers of any sort for women because they held that children must be "brought forth in sorrow". Even when Queen Victoria herself -- after bringing seven children in such sorrow -- opted for chloroform in her eighth and ninth confinements, physicians were slow to adopt the practice.

Posted by: Mendelein | July 16, 2009 11:51 PM

Wouldn't the mutilation argument only apply if it was done to him unwillingly as a child? What is the harm on him doing it to himself of his own free will? It is no different than any other cosmetic surgery if you opt as an adult. So why the outcry?

Posted by: Travis | July 16, 2009 11:54 PM

kamaka, Because I had a case of phimosis that could not be solved with cortisone cream. Believe me, I tried it, I wanted it to work, circumcision was not my top choice.

Posted by: mastmaker | July 16, 2009 11:57 PM

Based on my witnessing my wife's childbirth (without painkillers. her choice, not mine):
I feel painkillers like epidural may numb the senses women to such an extent that they may hurt themselves in a major way while exerting the pressure. I mean the extreme pains may prevent the women from hurting themselves during the traumatic (to the body as well as to the mind) process of childbirth.

Posted by: aratina cage | July 16, 2009 11:58 PM

That hatstand-up-the-butt reply was not civil or respectful to Dr. Walsh! It has only alienated him. Now he will never listen to the pro-painkiller side or reconsider his expert opinion based on the evidence. Way to ruin it for everyone, militant pregnant ladies.

Posted by: Travis | July 17, 2009 12:02 AM

Yup, so, it was circumcision or unhappy, uncomfortable sex. I like sex a lot, enough to get this done at least.

Posted by: LadyH | July 17, 2009 12:16 AM

As someone who ended up going thru childbirth and sustaining a category 4 tear without painkillers (was asking for them when the baby crowned) I can happily tell the good man to fuck himself with. . . well, I'd say, but the fainters might faint and I'd gross myself out :P

Posted by: Kseniya | July 17, 2009 12:19 AM

But... but...

I thought "natural" was synonymous with "better"!

Posted by: Travis | July 17, 2009 12:32 AM

Sven, glad I could be of help to you today.

Posted by: TheVirginian | July 17, 2009 12:40 AM

It was also natural for millennia for many women to die in childbirth. That gave fathers an incentive to bond with their children, as there was no mother to interfere with the bonding process.
See, God's plans are always good and end well for people. (Remember, women are not people; only men count in censuses in the Bible; so only men are people. God wills it!)
Seriously - and angrily, I must add - according to Andrew White's book "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom," in 1591, a Scottish lady, Eufame Macalyane, was burned at the stake in Einburgh for having used some type of pain relief in childbirth. He doesn't cite the reason in that case, but 19th-century clerical opposition to the use of anesthetics in childbirth boiled down to the Genesis myth that the biblical voodoo spirit condemned women to suffer pain in labor, so it was blasphemy to give them chloroform.
Similar arguments were thundered from the pulpit against vaccinations, because that was thwarting the voodoo spirit's punishments for sin; if you were a bad person, you were supposed to suffer whatever illness the divine inflicted on you.
The modern counterpart, of course, is those voodoo worshipers who fight research using stem cells and animal-human hybrid cells in order to ameliorate or even cure various diseases and medical problems: If God didn't want us to have diabetes or suffer permanent paralyses from spinal injuries, he wouldn't inflict it on us!
Finally, while the proposed empathy treatment with a coat rack is humorous, there is a real affliction that might give this good midwife some understanding of the pain of childbirth: Kidney stones. I've had a couple, and doctors have told me that women who've had kidney stones say the pain is roughly comparable to labor. So here's hoping Zeus shoves some kidney stones up this professor's urinary tract, and maybe he'll realize painkillers are a really good thing after all.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 17, 2009 12:52 AM

felix = mabus, who is mentally ill and already in the dungeon. ignore him, he and his posts will be gone as soon as PZ gets around to it.

Posted by: palochka | July 17, 2009 12:54 AM

The first rule of Mabus is that you do not talk about Mabus.

Dammit.

Posted by: Shaun | July 17, 2009 1:08 AM

What annoys me about this is that while I disagree with the guys opinion, I disagree even more with the people screeching about "he doesn't know what birth is like". The guy is a midwife, and while he hasn't given birth himself, he's probably witnessed more births than any of us. A cancer specialist probably has a pretty good idea of all of the pain people going through kemo go through, even if they haven't gone through it themselves. Can't we just attack the idea for being stupid, not because of who it's coming from? Would it be any less stupid if it were coming from a mother of three?

Posted by: Ron Sullivan | July 17, 2009 1:13 AM

As my sainted mother used to say: "It's like shitting a watermelon."

Posted by: Lyle | July 17, 2009 1:20 AM

I am shocked by the response to this study on a website such as this!

Sure, it's easy to go along with the sensationalist response that the media was grooming for, but it takes peopple of reason to look at what he said with an open mind.

This scientist has stated that in his mind, epidurals are being used unnecessarily in about 20% of cases. NOT ALL CASES.

His findings are based on experimentation with animal bonding with and without pain, and shows that the pain of childbirth plays a role. Should he ignore this finding? Is post-natal depression NOT a disease worth investigating? Did he ask to be mis-quoted by the media?

Shouting down a scientist for having an opinon based on research with emotive responses makes you no better than a Christian. There, I said it.

Posted by: Lyle | July 17, 2009 1:22 AM

I am shocked by the response to this study on a website such as this!

Sure, it's easy to go along with the sensationalist response that the media was grooming for, but it takes peopple of reason to look at what he said with an open mind.

This scientist has stated that in his mind, epidurals are being used unnecessarily in about 20% of cases. NOT ALL CASES.

His findings are based on experimentation with animal bonding with and without pain, and shows that the pain of childbirth plays a role. Should he ignore this finding? Is post-natal depression NOT a disease worth investigating? Did he ask to be mis-quoted by the media?

Shouting down a scientist for having an opinon based on research with emotive responses makes you no better than a Christian. There, I said it.

Posted by: RN Lee | July 17, 2009 1:28 AM

That Dr. Amy response, BTW, is absurd. Having been through two pregnancies and childbirths up close and a lot more less so, it ain't men who tell women they should "go natural" and bear the pain. It's other women, pretty much all the time. And they get Mean Girl about that shit. You're just not really a caring mom if you'd do drugs during childbirth...

Just for the record, if I had to do it, drugs, no question.

Posted by: David G. | July 17, 2009 1:47 AM

@LadyH #31

"As someone who ended up going thru childbirth and sustaining a category 4 tear without painkillers"

Holy shit. And you didn't pass out from shock? I'm sure you had your reasons for deciding to do it without painkillers, but of all the things that could have happened...

Posted by: Lyle | July 17, 2009 2:02 AM

Thanks for the link Pun.

All you loonies that are baying for blood based on a soundbite, read this first.

And remember, he hasn't advocated taking the decision away from the mother, but better understanding and education.

Posted by: GunOfSod | July 17, 2009 2:21 AM

The man is a professor of midwifery, maybe he just happens to know what he's talking about despite his lack of a female birth canal. Perhaps his theory would be better judged on its merits (or lack of) rather than a knee jerk reaction.

I'd have no problem with a women specialist offering treatment advice for male reproductive health, whats the difference?

Posted by: raven | July 17, 2009 2:33 AM

Lyle not a scientist:

His findings are based on experimentation with animal bonding with and without pain, and shows that the pain of childbirth plays a role. Should he ignore this finding? Is post-natal depression NOT a disease worth investigating? Did he ask to be mis-quoted by the media?

In this case the animal experiments are all but useless. There is something like a million babies born in the USA every year. Many use painkillers, many do not. To make such a claim with millions of potential research subjects who voluntarily got pregnant and gave birth, one would have to have human data on bonding. When human data is available or potentially available, animal data isn't enough.

Cats frequently eat their first kitten and sometimes their last. I know of no one who therefore advocates eating their first born. Maybe some weird xians somewhere, but even they probably aren't that wacky. The joke at NCI is that after spending tens of billions of dollars they have cured cancer.....in mice.

BTW, while we are animals, we are also highly intelligent, thinking beings. A lot of behavior that in animals seems to be entirely instinctual, might sort of be in humans but it is backed up by rational and cultural norms. I also know of no epidemics of women who used pain relief during labor tossing their kids in garbage cans or leaving them on park benches.

Posted by: Richard Bond | July 17, 2009 2:51 AM

Professor Walsh has been disgracefully reported by the news media, who, as usual, picked out the most sensational bits and then distorted them some more. I heard him interviewed on the BBC's Today programme, not renowed for giving controversial interviewees an easy ride. Not only was his message very different from what has been portrayed in the blogs, but the senior female specialist, brought in for balance, largely agreed with him.

Richard.

Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 17, 2009 2:52 AM

Personally, I think its a shame to see a midwife buying into the labour is painful business. It doesn't do much for the morale of women about to undergo the experience for the first time.

Well gosh, Pen, if there was ever an appropriate place to insert 'YMMV', this is definitely it. For many women, childbirth is unbelievably fucking painful. I don't see the benefit of keeping this potential outcome a secret from the first time mommies. The more information a woman has about the widely varied experience of labor beforehand, the better equipped she will be to make decisions when the time comes.

Pushing the baby out, yes, there is a resemblance to a (very small) watermelon, but that's a short part of labour and it hasn't been recommended to take pain-killers then for some time on the basis that you have some control over the situation and you're better off knowing what you're doing.

And this is one of about ten-thousand ways the shit can go down. That 'short part' of my first labor (the pushing) lasted 3 hours and 20 minutes. They were prepping me for a C-section when, through my despairing last ditch efforts, he finally crowned. He was 9 pounds, with a 15 inch head, transversely oriented. 'Shitting a watermelon' is absolutely apt. The pressure and pain were excruciating and nearly insupportable, and I sustained pretty heavy damage 'down unda' from which I will never fully recover. 'Control over the situation?' Yeah right. It's questionable whether either one of us would have survived the delivery without medical intervention.

And yes, I have tried it, and I didn't need painkillers any more than I would have for taking a long hike up a mountain. In fact the whole experience was greatly preferable to a trip to the dentist.

I am so pleased that you had a positive birth experience. And for the record, I don't view mine as 'negative' per se--I did ultimately get a beautiful healthy baby boy out of the deal, and it didn't put me off having a second child. However, I must point out that it is presumptuous as hell for you to use your own lovely natural experience as a basis for declaring how the process could/should be for every woman. It's happy asshole generalizations like this that make women feel like failures for asking for/receiving pain medications during labor. Get some perspective, please.

Posted by: Nadia Williams | July 17, 2009 2:55 AM

The main issue with regards to childbirth should be that the mother must be given a choice. This choice should not be ridiculed by anyone. I find the article highly insulting in its mockery of natural pain relief methods in childbirth. Has the writer tried it? Has she even spoken to someone who has used water for pain relief in childbirth? Because from personal experience, I can tell she hasn't. If she has, she will have known what dramatic, intense relief is provided from the pain when you immerse your lower body in warm water during childbirth. Once would be a fluke, but I experienced this for myself three times.

I had to deal with enough shit from arseholes who pointed and laughed because I tried all the natural stuff - for instance walking 3km a day throughout my pregnancy to shorten labour. They laughed all the way to the point where I gave birth in two and a half hours.

There were drawbacks to my choices - natural methods don't take away the pain completely, it just dims it. Yet there were benefits - if you can feel the pain, you know when to push, and this doctor is by no means the first to examine the benefits of not avoiding pain in childbirth altogether.

I have a friend who opted for an epidural, who had an extremely traumatic birth experience as a direct result. I had another who had an epidural who had a very positive experience. One who gave birth naturally and swore she'd never do it again, two who had really positive natural birth experiences, one who had a normal hospital birth and decided to try natural the second time round who preferred the natural experience, two who had c-sections with all their births (one as a heartbreaking 'no other option' mommy, one who gladly chose a c-section because she has a very low pain threshhold and was petrified of giving birth any other way).

Every one of us has been pointed at and condemned by some section of society because of our choices. Perhaps in the first place everyone should shut the fuck up and merely inform mothers of their choices, and do their utter best to give them whatever medically safe option they decide to take. In the second place we should also possibly not ridicule anyone who dares to speak out an unpopular view. Surely that's precisely what stifles enquiry and makes people too scared to ask questions?

If my reaction was over the top, I apologise, but quite frankly I'm truly sick of people automatically declaring you a loon if you do things a little differently, without stopping to ask themselves if perhaps you might be onto something.

Posted by: Simon Scott | July 17, 2009 3:01 AM

Screw all this crap about childbirth, Im simply dying to know how the "rationalresponders" managed to "terminate the atheist movement"!

Isnt anyone else absolutely enthralled? no?

Posted by: Susan | July 17, 2009 3:10 AM

I had two babies without painkillers-- my choice, just as Walsh advocates. I had a midwife and home birth for the second, but I was never under any pressure from her or anyone; it was always clearly my decision. Labor was painful, but I've learned I have a fairly high tolerance for pain. Not high enough to withstand appendictis, though. Now THAT hurt, and I got painkillers In me (and my appendix out) as soon as possible!

Posted by: Monado | July 17, 2009 3:41 AM

If you're lucky, the baby is face up so that the curve of the birth canal and the curve of the baby's body coincide. A friend's wife had a baby who had settled in to the pelvis face down, so labor had to rotate the baby 180 degrees on the long axis by pressing along the long axis--not efficient. It took many hours and I got the impression it was one of those times when you think you're going to die but are afraid you won't. I sill don't know why the doctor didn't reach in and turn the baby around, which would have saved someone about 24 hours of what she described as feeling like a tortured animal.

Serious damage is possible and in places like Africa, often doesn't get repaired to the extent that it's possible with modern medicine.

The newspaper article reports the midwife not talking about medical issues:

He said labour pain was a timeless component of motherhood...

Right. And dying of lockjaw is a timeless component of living close to the earth.

Posted by: AJS | July 17, 2009 3:59 AM

The pain of childbirth is still less painful for a woman than being kicked in the knackers is for a man.

After all, how often do you hear a woman say "I'd really love to have another baby" ? And how often do you hear a man say "I'd really love another kick in the knackers" ?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 17, 2009 4:07 AM

AJS, that was royally fucking dumb.

maybe if men got a shiny new Ferrari out of getting kicked in the nuts, they'd be more willing to let it happen? [/stereotyping]

Posted by: Margaret | July 17, 2009 4:19 AM

Deb #86 "Saying that pain is good is a stupid, sexist statement. But that is a completely different statement to saying that painkillers may have downsides."

Very true. I've only had one baby, and that was without painkillers. Eighteen hours isn't long compared with many women, but it is substantial, and yes, there was pain. But without painkillers, it is possible (absent any medical complications) to move beyond the pain. I did use a hot tub, and that made a massive difference. And the endorphins that flooded my body for days afterwards were the best high I've ever had.

That for some doctors and women, epidurals and caesars are considered "normal procedure" is as wrong-headed as what this fool of a midwife had to say.

Posted by: NickG | July 17, 2009 4:24 AM

@46 and @67

I had seen quite a few people have a kidney stone and was (and am) quite liberal about the pain medicine I give to my patients in the ER. I'm a hippy and I think I'm pretty adept at evidince based acute pain management.

Then I had a stone myself.

Holy. Fucking. Shit.

You cannot imagine how bad that feels. I had no idea till it hit. Made a broken bone and when I woke up from abominal surgery feel like peanuts.

And what amazes me is that women compare this to chilbirth. If I knew the EDC of my next stone I would want general anesthesia. If childbirth is comperable this guy should have his nuts removed with a rusty grapefruit spoon with 650mg of tylenol as his analgesia.

However, the point is that suffering people ought to be offered analgesia without the bullshit 'suffering makes you a better person'. Anyone who pulls that kind of crap on someone with moderate to severe pain ought to have his licensure examined. When pain is unavoidable and necessary, you do it. When its readily treatable and you pressure people into suffering you better have a damned good reason.

Posted by: Lyle | July 17, 2009 4:32 AM

You misunderstood Raven, you self admitted "cultist". I'm atheist through and through, not some newly reformed cultist like you, which I find rather amusing!!! Freak.

Medical researcher eh? Yeah right. Human data is there, but very incomplete and complicated with thousands of extra variables.

You blatant disregard for scientific method makes your claims laughable. "I also know of no epidemics of women who used pain relief during labor tossing their BLAH BLAH BLAH" HAVE YOU READ HIS REPORT? OR ARE YOU JUST BEING BLATANTLY INFLAMATORY BASED ON YOUR GUT FEEL???

Actually, don't answer that. You're probably too busy curing cancer right now.

Great post about the design of the birth canal BTW. Gee, that's original. There's a paper in that for you I reckon. :)

Posted by: 386sx | July 17, 2009 4:37 AM

I think this "pain during labor somehow makes for better bonding" theory is probably BS,it's like the surgeons of the early 20th century not wanting to give painkillers for belly pain because it would "mask" the symptoms.

Which he won't give a straight answer to, even though he says he was misrepresented. (Which can be a symptom of kookery.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8147000/8147196.stm

More symptoms of kooky town kooky-woo-woo...

http://books.google.com/books?&q=%22Denis+Walsh%22+complementary+therapies

Posted by: OurSally | July 17, 2009 4:57 AM

His reasoning is faulty anyway. Intense pain in childbirth does not make you accept and love your baby more.

My first baby got stuck, as it were, and I had 24 hours of normal labour, followed by 12 hours of continuous pain - the pains usually last for 3 long breaths, but these lasted 15 minutes to 1 hour. In the end they gave me a section because the baby was distressed. This was in a hospital where they try to avoid use of epidurals. Lying on the OP table, the anaesthetist asked me to stop cramping so, because it made it hard to get the needles in. When you have a section, you don't get knocked out until the scalpel is on your skin.

It took weeks to get me to accept my daughter, and I still don't care for her much, to tell you the truth. When I looked at her I felt the pain and defencelessness again. You don't remember the physical pain, but you remember feeling it, I promise you.

What it feels like? Someone has your insides in a vice and is twisting it.

Posted by: XD | July 17, 2009 5:15 AM

Off topics:

Cthulhu rises in Alaska.

Changing "language" to "English (Pirate)" in Facebook has this effect. (via Reddit)

Posted by: Dianne | July 17, 2009 5:39 AM

We have evolved to be far better at giving birth than we are at, say, avoiding chronic back injury since we've become bipedal--and there is an excellent evolutionary reason for that.

That's quite the low bar you're setting and I suppose it is met. However, given that the maternal mortality in places like rural Afghanistan is as high as 1 in 6, I hardly think that people are really optimized as far as childbirth is concerned.

Posted by: bark33p | July 17, 2009 6:06 AM

Reminds me of this article I read several months ago. It seems that labor pain may play a role in a mother's response to her child.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/delivery-method-affects-brain-response-to-babys-cry/

Posted by: Margaret | July 17, 2009 6:14 AM

Dianne #99, of course, but you can't dissociate other factors from the maternal death rate in Afghanistan. It's a society where women are profoundly disempowered. It's a country which, according to WHO, has among the lowest general life-expectancy levels in the world, where 25% of children die before their fifth birthday, and where chronic malnutrition and the lack of basic health care is the norm. That is not a reasonable comparison to make with the developed world where such levels of general morbidity and mortality do not pertain.

I can't see that one can usefully draw conclusions about optimisation for childbirth from such data. Better to compare levels of maternal physical and psychological health and mother-child bonding in countries where malnutrition, poor healthcare and general ill-health are not the norm, but where obstetric intervention varies, don't you think?

Posted by: Dianne | July 17, 2009 6:30 AM

It's a society where women are profoundly disempowered. It's a country which, according to WHO, has among the lowest general life-expectancy levels in the world, where 25% of children die before their fifth birthday, and where chronic malnutrition and the lack of basic health care is the norm.

Indeed. Very like the conditions under which people evolved up until the last maybe 100 years or so. All this expecting to survive childbirth, infancy, and childhood is extremely new, evolutionarily speaking. Not to mention expecting to survive 80 years: rarely happened until quite recently.

That is not a reasonable comparison to make with the developed world where such levels of general morbidity and mortality do not pertain.

I agree. My intent was to compare it with conditions in the "wild", that is, the conditions under which people lived until very recently. My argument may be less than coherent today since I'm jet lagged.

Posted by: Kitty | July 17, 2009 6:38 AM

I listened to Walsh on the BBC and he is actually criticising his own profession for being too ready to offer an epidural for their convenience rather than the woman's need or welfare. He wants to restore the focus onto the woman rather than the process and criticises midwifery for its lack of training in all aspects of pain management which can lead to inappropriate intervention when what the woman needs is support. The 'critic' brought in to offer the alternative view actually agreed with this.

Anecdote - from a friend, newly qualified as a midwife - she has 4 children of her own, one by caesarian section. This happened 3 months ago. She was delivering a woman who wanted a 'natural' birth, being supportive, sharing her own experiences, massaging her back, rubbing her feet, even yelling with her and making her laugh. The woman was coping and progressing well, there were no complications, but the senior midwife was becoming increasingly pushy about 'quietening' her down, and was critical about the amount of my friend's time which was required to support her. She kept offering her pain relief, and took my friend to one side and told her to try to persuade her to have an epidural 'while the anaesthetist was still on the ward' - then they could all have a nice quiet night without all this 'fuss and bother'.

It is this sort of practice, which is far from uncommon, that Walsh is critical of - he is not telling women to suffer for some higher cause but trying to get his own profession to have a bit more respect for what the individual woman actually wants/needs and to offer one to one support for every woman in labour, which is proven to reduce the need for intervention. (He cites sources).
I think it's pretty damming that exactly the same was occurring almost 40 years ago when I was the woman in the delivery room and had to fight, during labour for dog's sake, for minimal intervention in what was an uncomplicated - though not painless - delivery (3 hours). In those days shooting you full of pethidine was routine and allowed the woman to be left on her own with minimum support. I would have ended up delivering my own child if I'd followed their routine. The only difference was it was us women making a fuss about unnecessary intervention and medication for uncomplicated deliveries. We just wanted more midwives, more support during labour and more home deliveries.
But judging by the reaction on the blogs and in the press his message will be buried in a reaction which has no basis in facts, but looks for the sensational sound bite, and allows the profession to get by with a lower midwife to woman ratio. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!

Posted by: Jafafa Hots | July 17, 2009 6:57 AM

I once had a catheter removed without the balloon having been deflated first... does that count?

Posted by: RHM | July 17, 2009 7:04 AM

@ #94
"Women left routinely traumatised, physically and emotionally, by childbirth would do everything in their power to avoid getting pregnant again, and we clearly haven't. It would be an extremely maladaptive condition."

That statement makes no sense. It presumes that the female of the species have always had a choice in whether or not they become pregnant, as well as full understanding of the process, control over physical reality, and power over their social circumstances. The ability to make a choice based on preference, the knowledge that allows control over the biological process, and the power to impliment either of those things, are infants in the historical picture.
Your statement implies a power to women they did not have,
till now.

Posted by: Damian | July 17, 2009 7:13 AM

This is a really disappointing thread, with a lot of people spouting un-informed vitriol. There's a far more sensible analysis and discussion over at feministphilosophers (thanks for the link, pun the librarian #63), where 'extendedlp' gently and effectively shreads 'Dr Amy' in the comments.

To be fair, you haven't said anything that can be judged either way, apart from incorrectly stating that "extendedlp' gently and effectively shreads 'Dr Amy'", which on my reading, is false.

The two sides are rather arguing at cross purposes, however. This all hinges on whether Dr Denis Walsh actually said what has been attributed to him, and it appears that he did. At the Feminist Philosophers blog, they are pointing to a book that has little or nothing to do with his article that has been submitted to the journal Evidence Based Midwifery. In effect, it's a classic case of misdirection. Someone says something that others disagree with, so I point to a book where he doesn't say that, and then pretend that he cannot have said it, or that he is being misquoted or misunderstood.

So, unless you can show that he didn't say the things that have been attributed to him, the disagreement and criticism still stands. That he also says many perfectly reasonable things, and that he happens to be concerned with helping women is only relevant in arguing against an over-reaction (which I admit has happened).

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 17, 2009 7:32 AM

The pain of childbirth is still less painful for a woman than being kicked in the knackers is for a man.

After all, how often do you hear a woman say "I'd really love to have another baby" ? And how often do you hear a man say "I'd really love another kick in the knackers" ?

Ignoring the annoying self-important Lyle and the insane "Mr. Insignificant" it will be hard to top the stupidity of the above comment on this thread.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | July 17, 2009 7:46 AM

So that's what a "typical feminist" is like, eh? Huh.

It must be wonderful being so enlightened.

At least you're honest about yourself.

Posted by: Tycho the Dog | July 17, 2009 7:53 AM

Damian #113

Do you or anyone else have a link to the original article as everything I've read seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to how it's been presented by the media. Without that, it's impossible to say much more.

As regards Dr Amy, my reading of her comments is that she's fixated on the idea that Walsh is driven by a broader sexist agenda to disempower women, and she ignores any evidence to the contrary. I'm not arguing that such sexism doesn't exist; simply you can't tar an individual as a misogynist without better evidence than that.

Posted by: Knockgoats | July 17, 2009 7:57 AM

Hieronymous Braintree,
I guess it takes a typical sexist sack of shit to recognise a "typical feminist".

Posted by: Hieronymus Braintree | July 17, 2009 8:06 AM

To those of my critics who accuse me of being sexists, if you don't think feminists are sexists I have two words: Duke lacrosse.

And why is it that feminists wait until it's a male midwife, a sexual minority in the profession, to complain about the lack of painkillers when not using painkillers has been one of the main points of reintroducing midwifery? Sure seems sexist to me.

And I can't help but notice that your rage-filled, yet unintelligent critism neatly fits my negative stereotype of feminists.

Posted by: Logicel | July 17, 2009 8:11 AM

I suspect a 'typical feminist' is really a 'bitch,' but braintree is not clueless enough to let that slip. Instead braintree uses 'ragacolsim.' Though braintree is most likely describing feminists as angry and ranting, it is hard to tell. I did muse that perhaps BT is referring to simulations of raging colic.

I can only offer as an excuse for PZ seemingly taking anything published in the Daily Mail as accurate reporting, is that he did put this post in the humor category.

Posted by: Damian | July 17, 2009 8:19 AM

Damian #113

Do you or anyone else have a link to the original article as everything I've read seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to how it's been presented by the media. Without that, it's impossible to say much more.

As regards Dr Amy, my reading of her comments is that she's fixated on the idea that Walsh is driven by a broader sexist agenda to disempower women, and she ignores any evidence to the contrary. I'm not arguing that such sexism doesn't exist; simply you can't tar an individual as a misogynist without better evidence than that.

No, I don't have a link to the original article. As I've said, if he didn't say the things that have been attributed to him, the criticism would need to be retracted. But it's important to remember that none of the people that are defending him are actually suggesting that he didn't say what has been reported, they are instead pointing to his career and his other works. That's fine, but it can only be used to show that he isn't a sexist and that his motives are indeed geared towards better childbirth and care for women. What it cannot be used to show is that he doesn't hold the views that are supposedly contained in the journal, Evidence Based Midwifery (because he may have changed his mind since writing a book, etc).

As to what Dr Amy said, I agree that she is probably wrong about a supposed sexist agenda, but I was talking more about the fact that she was right to say that there is insufficient evidence to conclude as Dr Denis Walsh has. Sorry that I didn't make myself more clear.

He said: ‘A large number of women want to avoid pain, but more should be prepared to withstand it. Pain in labour is a purposeful, useful thing which has a number of benefits, such as preparing a mother for the responsibility of nurturing a newborn baby.’

It's the part in bold that I believe is unevidenced. He could well be right — I don't know — that pain in labour has a number of benefits, but it's one thing to suggest that, and another to go on to make unevidenced claims.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 17, 2009 8:26 AM

I have two words: Duke lacrosse.

I have two other words: Mike Nifong

You incredibly myopic idiot.

Posted by: Darby | July 17, 2009 8:40 AM

Hidden here is a great response to the anti-gay-marriage attitude of longstanding custom. Labor pain has been part of birth for thousands of years; eliminating it would just be against all of that tradition.

Posted by: 386sx | July 17, 2009 8:57 AM

This is probably where he got the evidence based evidence from:

http://books.google.com/books?id=S2PSV_sO86cC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=%22The+role+of+pain+in+normal+birth+and+the+empowerment+of+women%22&source=bl&ots=gV5Jw6hdlv&sig=tHEVT9NiWQsRdZIg3pY0W5hWmBw&hl=en&ei=zXRgSrzKGM6CtgemhsnaDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Posted by: Hieronymus Braintree | July 17, 2009 9:24 AM

Big dumb chimp,

You are apparantly unaware that feminists overwhelmingly assumed that the lacrosse players were guilty and vehemently supported Mike Nifong. Youre ignorance in this matter is truly astounding. Here's a link regarding just one blogger in question, the infuriatingly popular Amanda Marcotte:

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/02/edwards-fiasco.html

After this little outburst, she was defended by Katha Pollit, Digby and Atrios (Atrios even mocked people who were upset by her) and was given a spot at Talking Points Memo. In other words she was rewarded for her behavior and seems to have suffered no loss of reputation among feminists for her digusting, frankly misandrist behavior. If you didn't notice that, Rev. Big Dumb chimp, it's a profound testment to your ability to see only what you only want to see.

Now a lot of people seem to think that it says something bad about my character that I'm stereotyping feminists. One might assume that you good people are in principle against stereotyping. So let me throw out a few more stereotypes to see if you object to them as well: Conservative Catholics are homophobic assholes. Objections? White 1950s southerners were racist assholes. Objections? Republicans are liars or dupes who hide behind an absurdly souped-up and dishonest sense of patriotic superiority plus a phoney sexual morlity to make themselves and others think they're better than they are. Objection? Anyone?

And, if you're really against sexist stereotyping what about all the really nasty things feminists have said about men over the years. Like that we're categorically violent. That we secretly support rape. That we obsessively devalue the worth women and are engaged in a campaign of violent domestic terrorism agaisnt them. That, as Ms. Marcotte claimed, that we think we have the right to hold a black woman down and force her to have sex against her will. Objections?

I can find plenty of nasty things feminists have said about men. Can you find ONE nice thing feminist have claimed to be true about men? Are you angry about that? Or are you just angry at me for stereotyping feminists?

Let's be honest, shall we? It isn't that you object to stereotyping. What you really object to is stereotyping that you don't like. When it comes to stereotyping you're really just a bunch of pious hypocrites.

Liberals think they're fighting bigotry. That's nice. I just wish they'd spend some time fighting their own.

Posted by: Tycho the Dog | July 17, 2009 9:29 AM

Damian #127

Thanks for that.

I listened to a debate about this on BBC Radio, and a significant number of callers (at least 50%, and all women speaking from their own experience) felt that giving birth without medical intervention was a far more satisfying and less traumatic experience than with. For these women, the pain of childbirth was a positive (part of a personal rite of passage maybe).

In these contexts Walsh's comments can be interpreted quite differently - that the pain of childbirth can be a positive thing, and that women should be offered the choice to make informed decisions of their own, rather than be pushed towards the belief that pain killers, epidurals, etc, are indispensible. As far as I can see, the opprobrium that some people are pouring over Walsh is entirely unwarranted.

Posted by: Sonic Screwdriver | July 17, 2009 9:37 AM

"Can you find ONE nice thing feminist have claimed to be true about men?"
I'm a self-described feminist and I'd have to say the penis is one of the nicer things about fellas. It can be oh so much fun...

Anyways, about this warm water=less birthing pain idea... Could it possibly support the humans developed as semi-aquatics theory?

Posted by: Kitty | July 17, 2009 9:42 AM

"Pain in labour is a purposeful, useful thing" should immediately be setting off everyone's crank alerts...It is not fucking purposeful.

Of course it's purposeful - it lets the woman know the child is coming and the different types of pain experienced throughout are indications of what stage of labour she's in. Dilation pain is different from pushing pain.
Even my dog knows that and it lets her know when to get into her nest and hunker down to wait in safety and when to push a pup out! Labour hurts, whether you're human or not or do you think other mammals know they are about to give birth by telepathy?
How do I know she's in pain? Classic pain transference behaviour - she licks her front paws during dilation contractions.

Tycho the dog #137 - well said.

Posted by: Hieronymus Braintree | July 17, 2009 9:51 AM

Big Dumb Chimp,

Progress! You are now admitting that at least "some" feminists assumed they were guilty! Congratulations!

Now, if you could direct me to a post by a prominent feminist blogger who, in the first months, suggested the players were possibly innocent?

And the two post by feminists about the "nice" things feminists have to say about men: that male cancers are easier to treat (which, for some strange reason, I don't see as a charcter issue) and that another one likes men's penises. I especially like the one about saying that penises are something good to say about men.

I like women because of their tits, asses and vaginas.

I now await feminist applause!

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2009 9:53 AM

Hieronymus Braintree,

Do you have any intention of explaining why you confused midwifery practice in the UK with midwifery practice in the US ?

Posted by: Jojo | July 17, 2009 9:57 AM

All I'm going to say on the matter is that I've gone through labor. If anyone, man or woman, had said labor is a "purposeful, useful thing which has a number of benefits, such as preparing a mother for the responsibility of nurturing a newborn baby" to me before I received the epidural, I do not think they would have left the room in one piece.

Every birth is different and every woman should be able to make informed decisions based on the risks and benefits of different approaches. I went through several hours of transitional labor experiencing contractions that were peeking three times before finally getting my epidural. I told the anesthesiologist that I loved him the moment he walked in the room. When I saw my ten pound baby, I loved him all the more.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 17, 2009 10:01 AM

Although I think there might be something of substance to the original sentiment as presented it must be noted that the professor's views have been grossly distorted by the mail and then, perhaps unintentionally, by the "blogs".

Posted by: Hieronymus Braintree | July 17, 2009 10:05 AM

Rev Big Dumb Chimp:

Following that you of course make the typical error of someone who is prejudiced of lumping everyone with whom you have a problem in the same basket. In this case any woman (or man) who dares to care about equal treatment of sexes.

Were you recently hurt by a woman? What other misogynistic topics are you passionate about?

Look, everyone: See how much Rev Big Dumb Chimp is against sexist stereotyping? He says that I am making a "typical" error of "lumping everyone I disagree with in the same basket" (anybody here besides me notice the rather ironic incongruity?) and then assumes that I'm a misogynist just because I object to a movement that has repeatedly stereotyped men as violent oppressors. Right. And any gay person who objects to homophobia hates straight people! Blacks who object to racism are anti-white and women who object to real rape are misandrists! It's so simple. Thanks for the tip, Rev. I can now live my life as somebody who's every bit as good as you are.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 17, 2009 10:12 AM

I can tell you however, that men do feel pain of an equivalent nature even if they are unable to be assured of its equivalence. I, for example, once caught my scrotum (a significant portion) in my fly and passed out from the pain which was the most intense I've ever felt.

Rooke, you never fail to peg the creep-o-meter.

Posted by: Hieronymus Braintree | July 17, 2009 10:15 AM

Dear Matt,

The midwife everyone's pissed off at may practice in the UK bt the blogger cited by PZ, Majikthise, is situated in the US.

Since I'm criticizing the criticism there is absolutely no need for me to go through intellectual customs, something which I was previously unaware existed, you fee-thinking bastard, you.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2009 10:21 AM

The midwife everyone's pissed off at may practice in the UK bt the blogger cited by PZ, Majikthise, is situated in the US.

Since I'm criticizing the criticism there is absolutely no need for me to go through intellectual customs, something which I was previously unaware existed, you fee-thinking bastard, you.

Just saying you could not offer a reason would have been much quicker.

However I take on-board your admission you were unaware of fact UK and UK midwifery practices differ. It is a pity you did not take a little more time to understand those differences before claiming silly things like midwifery ever went away in the UK. Arguing from a position of ignorance, and now from admitted ignorance, does not help your case.

Posted by: HBraintree | July 17, 2009 10:44 AM

But, Matt, I did offer a reason. I was criticizing the critics who are US-based.

Let us review: PZ and Majikthise--both of whom are based in the US (you seem to be unclear on this point)--were complaining about how grossly insensitive it is for some midwife to suggest that women should go through child birth w/o medication. I pointed out that this has been the practice among midwives (indeed, doing w/o medication has been one of midwifery's main selling points)in at least the US for years (it's true I don't know about GB). I found it telling that they waited until it was a MALE midwife in a female-dominated profession to all of a sudden start getting offended. If they really find that so objectionable and it is normal practice for midwives in GB to anesthsize women in labor, then why are they bothering to attack a midwife in what you yourself maintain is an irrelevant country? Shouldn't they be getting offended about all the needless pain here? Which offends you more: an offensive opinion or needless pain? I don't know about you but needless pain certainly gets my vote.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2009 10:55 AM

But, Matt, I did offer a reason. I was criticizing the critics who are US-based.

That just indicates you got confused between the UK and the US.

You said:

"And why is it that feminists wait until it's a male midwife, a sexual minority in the profession, to complain about the lack of painkillers when not using painkillers has been one of the main points of reintroducing midwifery? Sure seems sexist to me."

Now let me repeat, midwifery never went away in the UK. I am not sure what part of that you do not understand.

Posted by: Silver Owl | July 17, 2009 11:21 AM

If pain supposedly prepares a mother for the responsibility of nuturing her newborn does that mean in order to prepare men for fatherhood we should induce pain in them?

Posted by: PBrazelton | July 17, 2009 11:53 AM

Dear Diary,

What I've learned from this thread is that many people cannot talk with any degree of rational civility about religion, politics, and giving birth.

Seriously people - this nuclear freakout makes no sense to me. The dude thinks people should use pain killers less in labor, and that there may be positive aspects to forgoing drugs. Plenty of doctors and midwives agree. Maybe you disagree. But isn't there a chance that someone with a penis can make an informed opinion about women and reproduction without being a sexist jerk? Or is that opion pool reserved for the ladies who had horrible, painful labors that necessitated drugs?

Anyway, here's a link to a well-reasoned defense of the guy. Enjoy another perspective. Or not. That's up to you.

Posted by: Amy Tuteur, MD | July 17, 2009 12:06 PM

Denis Walsh is not being criticized because he is a man. The fact that he is male puts the claims of midwives into stark relief. They have been saying the same things for decades.

The arguments against Walsh's claims have been around for decades, too. First of all, "natural" childbirth is not based on the scientific evidence. The scientific evidence is pretty clear on this point. Unmedicated childbirth is not better, safer, healthier or superior in any way. "Natural" childbirth is a philosophy and even as a philosophy it has some serious problems.

Feminist philosophers offer the most powerful critique. As Katherine Beckett writes:

"[T]hird wave scholars, drawing on their experiences with alternative 'birth culture', have criticized the alternative birthing community's knee-jerk rejection of (pharmacological) pain relief and understand this rejection as indicative of a kind of machisma, a belief that birth is 'an extreme sport'. 'Isn't it interesting', one such writer comments, 'that the movement that's supposedly feminist is the one that insists on women feeling pain?'. Another suggests: 'Today’s natural childbirth purists don't see moral punishment in pain but they do see moral superiority in refusing pain relief'.

The idea that women do (or should) savour, enjoy, or feel empowered by the experience of labour and delivery, they argue, romanticizes women's roles as lifebearers and mothers, and assumes an emotional and physical reality (or posits an emotional and physical norm) that does not exist for many...

In short, some feminists perceive the alternative birth movement as rigid and moralistic, insistent that giving birth 'naturally' is superior and, indeed, is a measure of a 'good mother'. The perceived moralism of this stance is quite troubling to some; according to one feminist critic, the 'natural' philosophy ... is as tyrannical and prescriptive as the medical model, but pretends not to be ..."

Denis Walsh's claim is deeply problematic, not because he is a man, but because the obsession with unmedicated birth is based on flawed assumptions about women and about pain. It is inappropriately moralistic, and consciously or unconsciously serves only to elevate the personal choices of "natural" childbirth advocates, while denigrating the choices of most women.

Posted by: RowanVT | July 17, 2009 12:14 PM

I am terribly amused by some of the anecdotes here and on the linked site. What some people don't seem to realise is that labor is different for every woman.

I have a great-aunt who had labor so easy, and babies naturally small, that one time she merely thought she had to pee, went to the bathroom and her water broke. Half an hour later, she'd delivered at home with pretty much no pain.

And then I have an aunt (not a blood relative) who is 4'11" whose babies were 10+ pounds each pregnancy. Can we say "massive pain killers"? 10 pounds being pushed out a tiny, narrow-hipped asian woman is not a "small" watermelon... that's the largest watermelon available after a search through 5 different stores specialising in watermelons.

While I have yet to have children, I do plan on doing so. I'm probably going to end up going natural, however, but not because I particularly want to. I have a tendency to react strangely to most sedatives and stimulants (valium makes me extremely violent, for example, and caffeine makes me sleepy) so I don't know what any sort of opioid would do to me... Probably send me to the "bad place" of narcotics. I also have a massive fear of needles and a knowledge of what can go wrong thanks to being a vet tech and knowing that heart block is a potential for an "oops" coupled with "giant needle in my SPINE"... there's no way I'd be able to sit still for it, which would pretty much insure it would go wrong. :/ I'm not terribly looking forward to labor.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 17, 2009 12:17 PM

Well Rev, for one thing "real" rape is not Duke lacrosse.

That was a lie and a quite obvious one.

No disagreement there

Tawana Brawley was not raped either. That was a lie too.

Agreed

Back in the late 80s and early 90s feminists were actually claiming that there was an international Satanic conspiracy in which 33% of all women were victims of some of whom had alternate personalities who were high priestess in these cults where they did stuff like eat their own babies.

Whoa.

You'll notice that we haven't heard about that one for a while.

I'll admit I've never heard of that one. Care to provide some links?

And Katie Roiphe as well as Christine Hoff Sommers have both done find jobs of demonstrating why feminists rape statistics are grossly over-the-top. That's what I mean.

But what is "real rape"? You danced around the actual question.

Posted by: BlueMonday | July 17, 2009 12:26 PM

I was unaware that we had perfected absolutely pain-free labor. That's great.

Wait. You mean that women still undergo a considerable amount of labor pain before painkillers are introduced? I suppose the good midwife must think there's an optimal duration and intensity of pain, then. Which means ladies who are in labor for shorter periods of time or who naturally have less intense labor pains must bond worse with their children, right? Or does the pain-bonding hypothesis dissolve in light of Mother Nature's way?

Incidentally, my mother had me 100% natural (the only one out of the 4 of us), and we bonded the worst. She's most bonded with the knocked-out-emergency-c-section one. Wasn't even awake when that one was born. Of course, it's only an anecdote...

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 17, 2009 12:29 PM

Back in the late 80s and early 90s feminists were actually claiming that there was an international Satanic conspiracy in which 33% of all women were victims of some of whom had alternate personalities who were high priestess in these cults where they did stuff like eat their own babies.

[Citations seriously fuckin' needed]

Posted by: LanceR, JSG | July 17, 2009 12:36 PM

Citation for Satanic Ritual Abuse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse

I know, wikipedia ain't the best source, but it is a good starting point. And any article with 151 footnotes and 13 additional references has got *some* weight.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 17, 2009 12:39 PM

oh ffs, is it really so hard to understand how inappropriate it is for someone to say that even thought women might want painkillers, they shouldn't want it, because the pain will make them better mothers?

unless someone can provide the context for that specific quote to prove that it's a quotemine, my opinion stands. he should have never put a moral dimension on it, and he should not be telling women that they should do contrary to what they want with their childbirth experience.

A large number of women want to avoid pain, but more should be prepared to withstand it. Pain in labour is a purposeful, useful thing which has a number of benefits, such as preparing a mother for the responsibility of nurturing a newborn baby.

Posted by: H Braintree | July 17, 2009 12:51 PM

A note to Matt and a note to Dianne

To Matt:

OK, you got me. As I have agreed, anesthesia and midwifery are apparantly not at odds in GB, have never left and thank you so much for relieving me of my ignorance. But I don't really care about that. What I do care about is that midwifery went away in the US and that it came back w/o anesthesia and that feminists seem not just OK with that but have actively endorsed it. See the contradiction? Pain bad in UK but same pain not bad in US. See the contradiction? I just said that. My point (and please pay close attention here) is that if it's bad in UK it should also be bad in US and, therefore, if you're going to complain about it when it's being discussed merely as a principle in the UK then you should really object to its factual, ongoing, every-day reality in the US. It makes no sense to let this sort of thing go on w/o comment for decades in the US and only flip out when someone suggest that the UK should try the same thing. Your repeated insistance that this is a UK matter has no direct bearing on my point.

To Dianna

HB: which, for some strange reason, I don't see as a charcter issue

Dianne: There's your basic problem. You're trying to see "character issues" in relation to gender.

This is retarded. D here is using the fact that I specifically renounced seeing cancer as a character issue as proof that I see character issues in relation to gender.

This is not about gender. Women are just as good as men (which is not necessarilly a compliment, misanthrope that I am) and I make no stereotypes about women. If feminsts are full of crap then they're full of crap. It's the crap that's the issue, not their gender.

George Orwell once said that one of the signs of double think is the ability to master the most complex and subtle arguments in favor of one's preferred political view while being completely incapable of understanding the simplest arguments against it. Feminsm continues to prove him right.

Posted by: Lucy Kemnitzer | July 17, 2009 1:00 PM

All of this is a sideshow.

Epidurals do, often enough for concern, lead to cesarean sections that would otherwise not be necessary: an increase in fetal distress: and a more complicated recovery than otherwise be necessary, when given in labor that is otherwise uncomplicated. Other opain medications have other problems that really ought to be taken into consideration in the context of childbirth.

Beyerstein is right to take Walsh to task for the dumb argument. But the fact is that pain medication is not a magic wand with no consequences. There are consequences to pain, also -- it's exhausting, for one, and it's a real concern that women whose labor is extra painful and long might experience complications from that exhaustion. So pain medication would be appropriate then.

But it's not reasonable to decide that because this guy puts forward a really stupid argument against pain medication, therefore everybody who suggests that we ought to use it less is buying into the same dumb argument.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2009 1:13 PM

Almost no medical procedure is.

You can delete the almost.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 17, 2009 1:18 PM

You can delete the almost.

Yeah, thats probably true.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 17, 2009 1:41 PM

Me: Breathe, sweetheart, breathe--you're doing great...
Her: SHUT THE FUCK UP! I WANT THE DRUGS NOW!
Me: Uh, sorry, honey, the doc says we're too far along for that now. Just...try to relax...breathe, breathe
Her: SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!!!! YAAAAAAA!!!!!

Posted by: Religion™ Brand Brain Staples | July 17, 2009 1:45 PM

@174

Would be so kind as to post some studies on this please? It's quite frustrating to watch people go back and forth with "yes it is", "no it isn't", and quite frankly I suspect you're familiar with the relevant literature. Throw me a bone here.

Posted by: HB | July 17, 2009 2:22 PM

Dear Rev. Big Dumb chimp,

Ask and ye shall receive

All the Babies You Can eat details the immense gullibility with which Ms. Magazine bought into this nefarious malarky:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n2_v53/ai_13566129/?tag=rel.res1

And here's a nice link describing those few, brave feminist who challenged the prevailing feminist wisdom of the day were treated by their sisters (Hint: can you say "tools of the patriarchy?).

http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/2005/10/mcmartin-postscript.html

Here's a link describing feminist sexual hysteria as regards to incest and Satanic Ritual Abuse.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IUK/is_2001_Summer/ai_78177292/

Back in the early 90s (and I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for this) PBS's Frontline did a program about SRA and spent a significant amount of time going after one of the chief offenders Bennet Braun who eventually lost a bunch o' lawsuits and had his medical license revoked: (http://www.fmsfonline.org/braun.html). They gave a dinner in his honor for all the fine work he did shooting up patients suffering from non-existent problems with drugs and isolating thim in psychiatric wards going after the patriarchal devil. The keynote speaker? None other than Gloria Steinem who thanked him in her book "Revolution form Within."

Believe me, Rev, this stuff was very big cheese. I have the intellectual scars from questioning this shit to prove it.

And yes, feminists do disagree. But when you have one group of feminists insisting on natural childbirth w/o medication and another angrilly insisting that anyone who would suggest such a thing is rotten and only wait to complain about painful births until a man suggests it, well that certainly fits well within the range of certain, negative feminist stereotypes, doesn't it?

I am now off to other things. Have fun with your continuing education.

Posted by: CJ :) | July 17, 2009 2:49 PM

I had two children drug free. It worked for me, even with the fourth degree laceration I had with the second one (which had nothing to do with whether or not I had an epidural). If I had it to do again, I still would have done it drug free because I believe there are advantages.

However, the important thing here is that it worked for me - not for every other expectant mother on the planet.

Posted by: Laurie | July 17, 2009 3:01 PM

I think feminists did important work in helping bring the widespread problem of child sexual abuse to light and being part of efforts to take it seriously, investigate it, and prosecute it. The McMartin case -- while a devastating miscarriage of justice -- was instrumental in improving law enforcement techniques so as to (I hope) ascertain the truth in these cases. A LOT of people were taken in -- not just feminists, but people who were uncomfortable with women working and leaving their kids in daycare. Laying it all on feminists ignores the context of the times, and the embryonic stage of police techniques in investigating these kinds of cases.

Posted by: H Braintree | July 17, 2009 4:29 PM

Big dumb chimp,

Back for a short break before driving into town to replace a missing tool. You are apparantly unaware that SRA and the incest panic were part and parcel of the same thing. If you don't believe me I suggest you buy a copy of "The Courage to Heal"--surely one of the most ironically entitled book in all of western history.

Now, as for you, Laurie.

I think feminists did important work in helping bring the widespread problem of child sexual abuse to light and being part of efforts to take it seriously, investigate it, and prosecute it. The McMartin case -- while a devastating miscarriage of justice -- was instrumental in improving law enforcement techniques so as to (I hope) ascertain the truth in these cases. A LOT of people were taken in -- not just feminists, but people who were uncomfortable with women working and leaving their kids in daycare. Laying it all on feminists ignores the context of the times, and the embryonic stage of police techniques in investigating these kinds of cases.

1) Giving what devolved into a literal witch hunt that destroyed the lives of thousands of people (over 2,000 according to the book "Making Monsters") credit for "improving law enforcement technique" is so morally callous, irresponsible and intellecually obtuse I could just spit. Let me repeat, IT WAS A WITCH HUNT. I'm sure the Salem witch hunts improved investagatory techniques there too. People who instigate, support and, in your case, excuse witch hunts are considered major league assholes for good reason.

2) Yes there were other players but feminism poses as a movement that fights bigotry and stands for reason. If you want to accuse others of being in denial or indulging in irrational bigoted hatred it's a really really good idea not to pull this kind of shit or to dismiss or excuse it or to claim credit for having accomlished a public good. The fact that other people were involved in this atrocity absolutely does not in any way absolves feminists of their responsibility in whipping this hysteria or of being screamingly, tragically wrong.(Indeed the fact that people correctly cited what was happening as hysteria was used by feminists as proof that their critics were really misogynist on the grounds that charges of hysteria were classic examples how the patriarchy marginalizes women.)

Your attempt to dismiss the importance of this issue shows that you, like feminists in general, are simply incapable of taking responsibility for own movement's shortcomings. Thank you for being yet another in a long line of feminists to successfully confirm my stereotypical notions about your movement.

Posted by: military wife | July 17, 2009 4:58 PM

Posted by: Shaun | July 17, 2009 1:08 AM

Shaun has an excellent point. I've heard this kind of dreck for years from female midwives. Why are people suddenly able to realize how stupid it sounds now--and seemingly only because it's coming from a man?

Posted by: Hieronymus Braintree | July 17, 2009 7:14 PM

In view of the fact that I've documented that feminist were squarely behind it (Ms. Magazine? Gloria Steinem?) your insistince on denying the truth is truly pathetic.

Here's another link to an essay by Alexander Cockburn you may not want to read.

http://www.counterpunch.org/pollitt.html

"The Courage to Heal" sold over 700,000 copies and was written by Ellen Bass and Laurie Davis, two self proclaimed feminists (incidentally opposition to the McMartin pre-school case is condemned as being part of the anti-feminist "backlash"). If you can't see the feminist influence I suggest it's because you folks didn't want to see it and don't want to see it. The fact that I have shown it was a cover article in Ms. Magazine seems to have made no dent in your powerfully armored brains. You can deny it all you want but feminists are a very closed-minded bunch and I'm used to you not being able to accept reality when it goes against you. Look what it took to get you feminist to recognize reality with the Duke lacrosse case! Jesus! And a lot of you STILL don't get it, like Rev. Big Dumb Chimp.

You know why most people including 70% of all women refuse to identify themselves as feminist? It's because you're victims of a smear campaign and most women are just too stupid to realize how right you are. Your ongoing unpopularity has nothing to do with the fact that you're a bunch of bullshit artist abusively lecturing others about their prjudice while completely failing to recognize your own. No sir. You are our true intellectual masters.

Posted by: Sauceress | July 17, 2009 9:51 PM

H braintree # 190

To Ms. Armstrong and other feminist writers, incest and other forms of child abuse were not the aberrations of a few sick men, but the results of a system that endows men with the sense of entitlement to own and abuse women and children.

"Ms. Armstrong and other feminist writers" may indeed have contributed to "this national scandal" and an "incest panic". My concern is with the issue you saw most fit to quote. There are many cases of incest not documented in the media due to the fact that many states maintain very old statutes which obscenely discriminate between child rape and incest. "Ms. Armstrong and other feminist writers" are certainly not the only ones who hold that the a view that the "system endows men with the sense of entitlement to own and abuse women and children."

If a child is raped...screaming headlines! But the incest cases?

One of the main areas of focus of Protect, The National Association to Protect Children, has been toward repealing archaic incest laws which reward child rapists, who happen to be relatives of the victim, with a mere slap on the wrist.
I'm pretty sure Protect wasn't founded as simply a megaphone for feminist agendas!

From a very capable man who has been in the thick of this particular disgrace for a long time....Andrew Vachss

Here's an example—not a rumor, not an "urban legend," an example I personally witnessed, more times than I can bear to remember: if a person has sex with a child under age 11 in New York, it is considered Rape in the First Degree, and punishable by up to twenty-five years in prison; a "violent felony," with mandatory incarceration. But, if that victim "belongs" to the perpetrator, he (or she: I have represented child victims against predators—and their facilitator/enablers—of both genders) could, instead, be charged with "incest." And the penalty for incest could be, legally, as low as probation(!).

http://www.protect.org/articles/vachssNewYorkVictory.html

Or maybe H braintree thinks people such as Vachss are simply looking to create a national scandal too?
Or maybe it's possible, he's looking not to create one, but to expose it!

Get your head out of your own arse braintree.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 18, 2009 5:07 AM

@ 154,

And yes, although we don't completely understand it yet, there is a connection between all of the hormones that are released during labor & delivery and the post-birth bonding that needs to occur between mother and baby.

Citation needed.Badly.

Posted by: katherine | July 19, 2009 11:23 PM

Removal of comments messes with the numbers.

To contribute: What about all those anecdotes here where the woman suddenly wants painkillers but is told it's too late? When is it too late? Why is it too late? :( I'd want to get pain killers right from the start if that's the case, rather than risk having it be too late if/when I do want them.