Misconceptions... and a bad doctor's visit.
By now I'm sure most of you know, that Lincoln and I are learning the Bradley method of labor and childbirth to prepare for the upcoming event. It promotes unmedicated and intervention-free birth unless there is an emergency for either mom or baby. We've enjoyed it so far and although we are by far not "granola", we do like the concept that the female body knows how to birth babies well and that medicine should be there to step in in case of complications but not take over the whole birth process.
My doctor is supportive of this, so we've been quite confident. Until last week, when it was time to see the "other" doctor again. They share their practice, so although one might have "one" doctor, you still have to see both, in case you go into labor when yours is not on call. Turns out the "other" doctor thinks natural childbirth is a myth and after a few prodding questions on our part he offered his view of the ideal birth, which went something like this:
"Well, I like to start out with an ENEMA...blablabla...constant monitoring...otherwise high probability of FATAL complications such as blablabla (insert a few horror scenarios of baby strangling itself in the womb)...then, EPIDURAL... if contractions slow down, a little PIT(ocin)....blablabla...if labor stalls...C-SECTION....blabla.. tune up epidural... otherwise....blablabla... VACCUUM EXTRACTOR....no food during labor...blabla.. danger of choking... potatoes over lungs... blabla.. labor should not be longer than 24 hours....blabla.. but infant MORTALITY has not changed in the past few decades..."
We left the office in a daze. He basically said we could have whatever we wanted, but that we'd fare best with lots of artificial help, otherwise it's very likely our baby will end up dead. Although it might end up dead even anyway because after all nothing has changed in the last 100 years. It's just the kind of encouraging talk new parents-to-be need to hear. It is amazing to me that a doctor of around 70 years seems so stuck in his ways that he will defend his methods against all obvious proof of its failures. Unfortunately it really does seem that when it comes to birth in particular one has to guard oneself from attempts of the medical community to just take over and push, suck or cut the baby out of you. Mostly because you didn't produce the baby fast enough, or you wanted to do it in a way it was not convenient for the medical staff. After all time is money and interventions are far more lucrative than a natural childbirth. And in case of a lawsuit the doctor has to show he "did" everything he could - so, what is there to present to the jury if he let nature take its course?
And I thought the book I was currently reading was just exaggerating. I highly recommend "Misconceptions" (Naomi Wolf) - not because I share all her views, but because it's an honest account and because Naomi Wolf is a feminist and it's interesting to see what a feminist has to say about childbirth and motherhood. I stopped at many passages thinking: Exactly! That's how it is! I was also going to post about each one of those, but you'll have to forgive my pregnant laziness, I just didn't take the time to bookmark all those pages. Plus, you might've been bored with a detailed critique of something you haven't read.
To sum it up though, she talks about the unfriendly environment the US is today for mothers - beginning from doctors who speed up labors for their own convenience to employers and government who pressure women into leaving their babies to come back to work and husbands who are unwilling to share the burden of having children. Ok, she's a feminist, what did you expect? I must admit I don't recognize myself in the women and families she offers as examples, but there is some truth to all of it.
I didn't know the US was the only industrialized country that does not have paid maternity leave. I've always wondered about that but I guess I didn't realize its unique stance on this. I also didn't realize that many modern, feminist men (as she calls them) don't think that ultimately they should sacrifice their own careers in order to spend more time with their children.
I did like seeing my view confirmed, that many stay-at-home-moms are totally left to their own devices, that motherhood is seen as something biological that happens (or should happen) on the sidelines of your life. It's a little of a nuisance, that takes away from the woman's availability as an employee, which is very inconvenient, so she should make sure she somehow successfully pushes that child on the sideline of her life - as it is appropriate.
Yeah, this sounds a little bitter, but I must admit I am disappointed with the choices society presents you with: either you're a stay-at-home-mom, which socially means you're dumb or didn't manage to have a "real career"; or you're the "career woman", the socially far more acceptable option, but you'll sacrifice a little in your womanlyness as you will also be judged for being cold and heartless.
From what I've seen at work, many women are neither. They need to have a job and they like it but they miss their kids. They talk about them, they have their pictures all over their cubicle... I don't have the answer when it comes to this dilemma. I don't see staying at home as the ideal solution for everyone. Being a SAHM is very isolating nowadays. It's not like it used to be, with grandma, aunt and neighbor close by. It's you and the kid all day long in a small apartment or house. I can see why women would like to have a job as well, but Naomi Wolf is right when she says the working world is just not made for women and that's not the case because there's not other or better way. It's just because it's convenient the way it is. Because raising children is not seen as something valuable. If it was, there would be a way of adapting the working world to the mother's needs. Maybe the nursery could be in the same building as your job - and your employer would encourage you to go nurse your baby every two hours. Maybe employers would be willing to offer more part-time jobs or install work stations at home. Oh but it's such a hassle. Yeah, that's true. It's just a kid. He'll grow on hiw own, as long as you feed him - and what does it matters who hands him the spoon? Instead we need to generate more business. Now THAT's a cause worth sacrificing for! We need to make more stuff, so people can buy it. More stuff will make everybody more happy and fulfilled. We don't have enough STUFF in this world, who needs children?
Interesting post Dinka. You cover a lot of things I have been thinking about.
"Maybe the nursery could be in the same building as your job "
You know Cisco Systems (and a few other local companies) are actaully doing this. I don't know how long it will last with the recession, but a few very select companies are trying to do this.
I think it is hard to be a mother now days, for the reason you mentioned. Women who work aren't happy with their lot in life, and women who SAH are also unhappy. You know I rarely meet women who are mothers who are happy with where they are.
*looool* I hau mi ab - dinka you know I agree with you in every single point here - especially the FACT (!:-)))) that we need more stuff - I could say a lot about this, but I am just too tired now (I just came from berlin, visiting teresa :-)))))) so I think I will call you and discuss all of this when I have slept a bit
bussal
Don't think, that it's easy for the father to leave home every morning when the children are telling him "Take me with you - or stay here - I really need you being around all the time!". It just that men are usually not that eloquent, most of the fathers are talking about other things at work, they need to be "cool" like the boys at the playground.
Anyway you should read "Christian Fatherhood" by Steve Wood!
martin, actually in the book she is very much in favor of offering dads more work-time flexibility, so that they would get to spend more time at home as well. it's just that if employers are unwilling to give women more time off, you can imagine what they think of men wanting to be with their kids more.
leider....
My solution would be: The workaholics shall work as much as possible (even for 24 hours - they probably need this to actively avoid a heart attack!) and shall pay for the others, who doesn't feel bored at home, because the workaholics don't have the time to spend their salary on their own.
;-)
Do you agree?
GREAT post dinka. I hate that attitude that children just get in the way of everything. Without children, our society has NO future. NONE.
I hope you can avoid that creepy doctor.