# Birth, Feminism, and the place of males in the whole thing



## ktbug (Jul 8, 2006)

I've always kind of had this idea anyway, but I've been hearing more and more stories lately about OBs hell-bent on destroying informed consent and labor partners who don't stand up for mama. It may be jumbled, because I've had a couple of beers and I'm angry.

I'll come right out and say it. I think childbirth is a feminist issue, and beyond that, I think men have no place in any part of it. I RABIDLY believe that any woman who wants a decent, respectful birth should steer way clear of doctors in general, but a woman who employs a male OB as her birth attendant is in for a special kind of hell. I don't think men should be obstetricians. I don't think men have any place in the birthing room whatsoever, with the exception of the birth father or trusted partner of the birthing woman. If the partner is in the room, they should be fully and completely briefed on the nitty gritty of childbirth, and should be aware at all times that it is the laboring mother who is in control, and they are there as her advocate and soldier.

I am continually appalled at the stories I read here and elsewhere of women who have been totally victimized by male OBs and male GYNs. _Why_ the *hell* would a woman let a MAN be in charge of her gynecological health??? I think male OBs and GYNs simply reinforce patriarchy.

Why do men want to be OBs and GYNs anyway?

I'm so sorry for the rant. I'm just beginning to let my thoughts take shape on this matter, but it's something I (clearly) feel very strongly about.

I asked a good male friend of mine the other day, as we were talking about this very thing, if he would ever consider seeing a female urologist or proctologist. He laughed at me. Why do women not think twice about seeing male OB/GYN's?


----------



## amitymama (Nov 17, 2006)

I've had these thoughts before too and it really is infuriating to hear so many stories about incompetent and authoritative male OBs who ruin the childbirth experience for women in labor. However, there are also female OBs who do the same thing. Maybe it's because they've been schooled in a male-dominated university/medical school/field and have just swallowed the bait, hook line and sinker, I don't know. Or they feel that to get ahead and do as well as the top men, they have to think, act and behave like them as well (aggressive, controlling, insensitive). There are definitely loads of perfectly understanding, lovely doctors, both male and female, out there but people aren't very vocal about their good experiences and that's why we only hear the horror stories. That is worth bearing in mind when it seems that EVERY SINGLE birth is controlled and underminded.

As far as banning male OB/GYNs...while in theory I agree and think it makes sense, in practice it sets a dangerous precedent about gender roles and what we are each 'allowed' to do or understand. I've had two gynos -- one male, one female. The female was rough, distant and cold. The male was gentle, compassionate and professional. Not everyone fits into the gender-specific stereotype and to pretend we do is dangerous, not only for birth but for other areas as well. If we ban men from the business of birth outright, they'll retaliate and want to ban females from doing traditionally male things or dealing with things that pertain to males. Besides, we're all humans and childbirth is the most basic, primal thing -- our species propogating itself. And as much as some people might not like it, men are involved in that process as well. It is their children being born and the future of their society as well, not just women's.

What we need is plain and simple -- more education and less propaganda and fear-mongering. Women need to be given the tools (aside from reading 'What to Expect' and watching a few lousy TLC shows) to educate and empower themselves. Males need to do the same. The problem is, they don't want to right now. People are happy living in ignorant bliss and like having someone make their decisions for them, especially when it comes to the human body. We've denigrated the body so much that most women have never even looked at or can name the parts of their genitals and men have no idea where their prostate is, let alone either sex knowing what a body is capable of in birth. Is it any wonder we leave it to these 'demi-gods' to tell us what to do? But that's not entirely men's fault. Women have given up their power without a fight, a long, long time ago, and it is going to take time to get it back. It's tempting to start a radical revolution but for it to be a true, long-lasting movement, it has to be done slowly, from within. We have to get inside people's lives, inside their heads and start, ever so slowly and subtly, putting seeds of doubt in their mind until they start learning for themselves again. I think that's really the best first step at the moment. Blaming men for the entire problem and banning them completely won't help anything right now, IMO.

I know I've rambled a bit here too (only on my first cup of coffee







but I do empathise with what you're saying and understand your frustration. I think a lot of us do. Hang in there mama, it will only get better if we have people like you, with such passion, to help fight birth's corner.


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

i think that part of the reason that women go to malel OBs or OBs in general is largely cultural. first, it was quite a while before women could become doctors. that is, those who did were rare. so, the first OBs were men, they made themselves into the authorities, and when women started to become doctors (when that was becoming mainstreamed), it was shocking to many women that women would even want to do it, it was questioned whether or nto they had the intellegence to, etc--thus their authority is lesser than a male.

and then, of course, the idea that the OB is god, that's important. it's huge in our culture to just go to the doctor. everyone loves the doctor.

now, i'm with you that these birth issues are feminist issues. but i don't think men should be barred from the whole thing. instead, i think it should be mother focused, mother empowering. i like the UC model for this. The idea is that the mother is the one in power, in control, and utilizing those attendants that she has as she sees fit. So, fi she has a doctor because she needs one, it's clear that the doctor is there to serve her, not that the doctor is taking responsibility for the birth.


----------



## babymonster (Oct 1, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amitymama* 
I've had two gynos -- one male, one female. The female was rough, distant and cold. The male was gentle, compassionate and professional.

That's interesting, someone on another forum I visit ran a poll on this, and most people seemed to rate their female OBs as more heavy handed, impatient, and pushy than their male counterparts... I find that really sad.

I also find it odd that male OBGYNs are the majority - they specialise in body parts that they don't even have, and processes that they can never go through.


----------



## 2bluefish (Apr 27, 2006)

Eh, I don't think it has anything to do with the gender of the doctor. After my first homebirth, I had a hospital stay for an infection and the male OB was nothing but kind, gentle and polite. My second birth was a transfer and that male OB was nothing but kind, gentle and polite. I reccomended that last OB to several of my friends (non-homebirthing types) due to his good bedside manner and his record being the best in the area for natural deliveries. Most of my friends insisted on seeing a female doctor for what I interpreted as "touchy feely" reasons and they all ended up sectioned. I view an OB like an mechanic - if I need one, I want one that is competent to fix the problem - otherwise I think they have no business being involved with my births. If women want a midwife, they should hire a midwife - not select a doctor just because she's an "she" and think they are going to get a midwife's standard of care. Anyway, my 2 cents...


----------



## JanetF (Oct 31, 2004)

Patriarchy is a system which preferences men in (almost) all ways but you don't have to be a man to employ it's tactics. It's not what's in the pants of the careprovider it's what they have between their ears and in their hearts. A surgeon is a surgeon is a surgeon and while some are compassionate, most are just institutionalised and utterly inappropriate carers for pregnant women. It's interesting that a few surveys have shown that women surgeons have elective c/s for their babies as if they can bypass their own femaleness and play on some level playing field with the boys. I was raped by a woman surgeon in my birthrape. It is a HUGE question and birth is definitely a feminist issue even if most feminists don't see it that way. Of course some of us radical feminists are working on that


----------



## MsBlack (Apr 10, 2007)

YES--what Janet said!


----------



## MsBlack (Apr 10, 2007)

Oh my goodness! I just saw something by my name..."I am made of awesome"...er, how on Earth did that get there? I think I know, since a certain unnamed someone on this list...someone who just so happens to have some technical access here...used that phrase on me yesterday.
























wow, I'm kinda speechless, er, thanks. wow.

sorry to hijack...just had to say something to someone...


----------



## JanetF (Oct 31, 2004)

Congratulations







I'll stand in for the someone


----------



## MsBlack (Apr 10, 2007)

Well then, Janet--

you get the hug of appreciation...and the scolding (what, are you trying to make me look conceited or something?)









anyway, back to the topic at hand...

I do see birth in this era as a feminist issue, that is much at the heart of my mwifery practice--and midwifery is also at the heart of my eco-feminist practice. Yes, some men make pretty good 'midwives' (be they OB or other), their caring and gentleness was not wiped out through their training...and all too often, women make sadly great patriarchal/dominator practitioners since that is the mode in which they were trained and further, it is very hard for women to compete in that ed. system --so maybe they are more rewarded for stomping out their own feminine nurturing qualities in pursuit of the 'M.D./OB' designation.

But in general, it has always seemed wrong to me, for men to be so involved in women's health care. Not just men as individuals, but men as a group--masculine thinking and approach laid onto the female body and mind, the men's appropriation of a strictly female function. That phenomenon is very much a brainchild of patriarchy's wish to own/colonize the world of the feminine and the bodies of women. It is a close cousin to patriarchy's basic philosophy of Mind Over Matter, Rational/Scientific Over Irrational/Instinctive--think of Christian marriage philosophy where the man is supposed to be The Head; this is not just the man as Boss (tho he is), but man as The Thinker, the Brain, the Mind...who is 'needed' to guide and control women's function as Heart, Feeling, all that messy stuff. Well, he IS needed for this, if women are to remain generally controlled by the Church and specifically controlled, each woman to a man.

Anyway, there is a lot more to this...but I won't try to say it all here. Women have to realize/decide that it's not just men as individuals who don't belong near birth and women's health, but finally see that it is the masculist approach to women's bodies that is so very wrong/perverse/peculiar and UNSUITED TO THE TASK. When this happens, then we will see a movement by women to kick men out of our health and birth business (as a group and as an attitude, with allowances for individuals), and reinstate ourselves as the only true experts and rightful decisionmakers for us.

onward to that day!


----------



## Beppie (Oct 24, 2005)

I also feel very strongly, from a personal standpoint, that I could never be comfortable with a male OB. Or perhaps ANY OB, male or female! Because I do agree that a lot of women OBs are as bad as the male OBs who trained them.

I could only be satisfied with a midwife. My homebirth midwife, a woman who has had 8 children herself --- the first 4 in the hospital, the last 4 at home --- is someone who I trust so utterly and completely with my births and with my personal health. There is a certain female wisdom that is simply out of reach of a lot of men. I tend to agree that birth is a feminist experience.

I could never trust a male OB the same way, even one who is gentle and knowledgeable, because so much of my trust is based on a woman being a woman, and going through these same experiences herself. KWIM? So I agree, that birth is the realm of women, and only women. (Although I'm a little hesitant thinking that male OBs should be banned.)

It reminds me too of other cultures. DH is from India. When his mother was having children (she had 11), childbirth was completely and utterly the woman's business, and only women. When daughters gave birth they went to their mother's house. And a midwife caught the babies. Men were completely out of the picture.

Sadly, a lot in India is changing today. Most of DH's nieces have had cesareans in hospitals with male doctors. Sometimes western cultures "outsource" the worst practices! It is very, very sad. There's so much wisdom about birth in a culture like India's that is being lost, as childbirth becomes a surgery. How ironic that now in America women are turning back to this ancient wisdom, and choosing to birth at home!


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

I've been under the care of a lot of OB/GYN's over the years.

The absolute _worst_ of the bunch was a _woman_.

The absolute _best_ of the bunch was also a _woman_.

When it comes to complications of pg and birth, I wouldn't hesitate to choose my last OB again, a man. His competence in the OR was astounding, and if I ever had complications, you can believe I don't care on iota if the doc is a male or a female. I want them to know what they are doing and do it well. I've only had one female OB that fit that criteria, whereas I've had several male OB's that I would trust if my life were on the line.

For those that believe men do not belong in the process of birthing at all period, do you also believe there are professions where women do not have any business in?


----------



## Alison Cole (Mar 6, 2006)

I agree that the problems is systemic, deep within our culture, history and worldview. Science, a masculine construct, with it's mechanistic conceptualization of the body (body as machine, every process able to be modeled mathematically...), and the universe, leaves no room for the messy intricacies of the birth process, or for the blend of scientific, experiential and intuitive knowledge of midwifery (at its best). And it is science that's won the day in our culture as the source of Ultimate Truth. Medicine, supposedly rooted in science, produces doctors who (as has been said before) are something like demi-gods, the mediators between us mere mortals and the one source of truth about our bodies, medical science. Trouble is, they're actually just humans, and when push comes to shove, will do what they believe to be true over practices that good science has shown to be true. Here is where we can use their own weapons against them. The randomized, controlled trials showing improved outcomes with a labor support person present are one example of this, as is the MANA statistics project. But it's frustrating at the same time, to have to go inside the system to prove our points when that system doesn't even play by its own rules.

So, I don't think it's about individual men. I think it's about, as a culture, unlearning patriarchy, recognizing that there are many ways of knowing, and honoring the complexity of the world, specifically (to this conversation) birthing women's bodies and wisdom. I think it's dangerous to assume that one person gets this stuff more than another because of what parts they have. My male partner is definitely more of a feminist than many women I know, and as part of that, he respectfully defers to me when it comes to the topic of what ought to happen at our birth.

So, uh, ramble ramble ramble.









Hope I added something new to a very interesting conversation!!


----------



## dinahx (Sep 17, 2005)

The way Obstetrics is practiced in America is violent, degrading, and NOT BASED ON Evidence.

My better OB during a HB transfer *was* a man, though. I totally agree that women OBs can be just as wrapped up in a patriarchal violent way of practicing as men. Especially a female OB who has had a section herself. JMO, but I think they get a little section-happy, if they have had one.

I just cannot spare another minute on a mama who thinks she will get anything but invasive, medicalized care from an OB, especially one in a large practice. Open your eyes, mamas!

It is absolutely a feminist issue. How come you can pick an elective C-section in every state in the USA but you can't legally hire a CPM in my state? Anyone who says this is about the safety of mothers & babies is definitely fooling themselves. It is strictly a business monopoly. If we cared one whit about the safety of mothers/babies as a society, birth wouldn't be the IV/Pitocin/Epidural nightmare it has become. And every hospital would welcome HB transfers.









I try not to be angry at my sisters who just want to "swallow the kool-aid" as it were, because we *are* all sisters in this, but it is *very* hard. I think we *all* have to insist on our rights/a change before it will happen.


----------



## elanorh (Feb 1, 2006)

Maybe I've swallowed the Kool-Aid then. Assisted Homebirths are illegal where I am, which means I'd need to either UC or birth at a hospital. I've had two natural child births at the hospital with my (male) OB, and one m/c at home under his care. And he is wonderful. He doesn't direct me or anything, and at this last birth dh says OB was very forceful with the nurses when they tried to hook up pit after I delivered SJ (I need an IV due to a heart condition).

He asked me the next day, when he stopped in to check on me, whether I was happy with this birth.







He is kind, nonjudgmental, practical, etc.

A good friend of mine from college is now an OB. She says she would want an epi if she gets pregnant. I would take my male OB over her, hands down. Maybe he's been more free than her to surrender to the beauty and power of birth, because if she does she's a superstitious woman whereas if he does, he's a man and not judged the same by medical compatriots?

My aunt has had five children, all natural births, and two of them while in hospital were without a doctor present (we birth fast).... Her husband, who is a 50ish year old rancher, has said more than once that he would love to help other women birth. And I know that it's not in a managing sort of way, but that he has been moved by the power of birth too, and supporting his wife through her births. If dh couldn't be with me at a birth, I'd want my aunt before my uncle but I'd be comfortable with him too.

I agree that birth doesn't belong in hospitals; if I could have birth at home with someone assisting me (midwife) I would do it (Maybe by the time we have another babe, I'll be comfortable enough to UC) .... But I also think that gender shouldn't automatically discount someone from being an OB, etc. Doesn't that just reinforce that awful gender distinction where women are nurturing and men are oafs?







Call me a heretic on this one I guess. Because as we contemplate traveling out of state to birth our next babe (with a midwife, maybe at her home) -- I know I will be missing the presence of our OB during that birth.

He doesn't practice medicine as I see described so often here and elsewhere; I know that there are vaginal exams etc. etc. etc. done on women when they aren't necessary, are intrusive, etc. But he doesn't do that (at least with me) and I assume he doesn't do that (at least as much) even with the patients who choose to be medicated.

ETA:
I read this blog awhile ago and thought I'd link to it on this topic. The birth story and pictures here made me cry.

http://observantmidwife.blogspot.com...tos-words.html


----------



## LemonPie (Sep 18, 2006)

I was about to reference the same blog elanorh!

I think it has less to do with what's between the legs than with what's between the ears.

My FIL is a family practitioner who delivered babies for years, until the arthritis in his hands got too bad (he was afraid he'd drop a baby). In the small town he practices in, he is _beloved_. He has walls of baby pictures, everyone in town knows him. He sat in his daughter's high school graduating class and counted--he delivered half or more of the very large class. Granted I don't know much about his methodology, but I do know he let a friend of my mother's deliver in the shower. My mother went to him way back hoping for a VBAC because he was one of the few around who still did them--he wouldn't agree because of her vertical incision, but he did her c-section (yes, an FP who did his own c-sections--and yes, you're reading that right, my FIL delivered one of my younger brothers







). He spends time with his patients, knows more about them than their medical needs and problems. I've seen him take gifts and a small tree down to the hospital because he had a patient who was going to be stuck there over Christmas. He's in it because he genuinely loves it. He loves his patients, worries over them, prays for them.

By contrast, the female OB/GYN who delivered my last baby is beyond COLD. I'd go in for visits and she'd be rushed. Literally backing out the door as I was trying to ask her questions. I felt like I was being shoved through a prenatal assembly line. She walked in about 2 minutes before my daughter was born, and walked out about 10 minutes later. I was in the process of meeting my daughter, tears running down my face, and it was "Call my office and set up an appt for a postpartum exam." I saw her for roughly 2 min the next day when she rounded on me and discharged me. I've had 2 miscarriages and when I've called her office, her staff has been "business as usual" or even rude and blunt. No compassion. No gentleness. No recognition that I might be having a painful event. "Your HCG dropped--go get a blood draw next week to make sure it drops below 2."

So no, I don't think it has much to do with gender. We THINK women should be more empathetic because they've been through it or could go through it. But most of us can cite examples of caring male docs and horrible female docs.

Who do I want to deliver my baby? Someone with a healthy respect for my body and it's capabilities. Someone who believes in normal, physiologic birth. Someone who can handle a crisis, but doesn't invent them by being too hands-on. Someone who genuinely sees birth as the miraculous event that it is.

Jen


----------



## dinahx (Sep 17, 2005)

Just to clarify, I didn't mean any mama who births in a hospital has a taste for sugary juices.










But we all know that there are mamas out there that are buying what *most* OBs are sellin' wholesale! Just sayin' it makes me sad.


----------



## ktbug (Jul 8, 2006)

I'm not really talking about empathy here, and I know that women OBs can be big horrible jerks, too. So can female midwives. I'm sure there are male OBs out there who are caring and wonderful and do great jobs.

From my point of view, as a woman, a mother, and a feminist, however, I just don't see the sense in trusting the care of my female parts to a person who does not have those parts. It's as strange a suggestion to me as seeing a veterinarian. I didn't say men should be outright banned from OB/GYNing, that they shouldn't be allowed to be baby/mama doctors. And people have the right to choose whatever they want.

I, however, can't stand the idea of a man being involved in my process of childbirth in any way. Similarly I can't stand the idea of a man doing my routine pelvics, breast exams, and pap smears.

I guess I do see some jobs that women should stay out of. Penis enlargement. Nation-building. Nuclear proliferation.
These are jokes, people.

No, any person of any gender is qualified to do any job.
I just don't want any person of the male gender doing the job of being my birth professional or well-woman care provider. And I know many men who feel that they don't want anyone of the female gender doing their prostate exams.

I also genuinely don't understand why men want to be OB/GYNs, except for the sadism. I really have trouble wrapping my head around a man going through medical school and residency, all that hard work, with the purely altruistic intention of "helping women". It just doesn't compute, and for that reason, I don't trust male OB/GYNs.


----------



## LemonPie (Sep 18, 2006)

Quote:

I also genuinely don't understand why men want to be OB/GYNs, except for the sadism.
By that logic, should we say that all med students who specialize in pediatrics are pedophiles?

Quote:

I really have trouble wrapping my head around a man going through medical school and residency, all that hard work, with the purely altruistic intention of "helping women". It just doesn't compute, and for that reason, I don't trust male OB/GYNs
Honestly this statement astounds me. Because to take it to it's logical end, it seems that you believe all men find all women inferior and therefore not worth caring for as patients. Some people are fascinated with the brain. Some with the heart and lungs. Others with the bowel. What's so wierd about being fascinated with the reproductive system? I mentioned above my FIL is a family practitioner that did OB for years simply because he loved it. My husband is also a family practitioner who happens to like doing women's health. He thought seriously about doing OB as part of his practice. He loves and respects women. Neither of them are sadists.

Don't get me wrong--I do think OB/GYNs are better for birth _emergencies_, rather than physiological birth. Totally agree with you there. But to say that a male practitioner would specialize in women's health because he is a sadist is profoundly misguided. While I agree that there are OB/GYNs hurting women out there (far, far too often), most aren't _intentionally_ hurting their patients.

Jen


----------



## danotoyou2 (Jan 19, 2007)

This is such an interesting thread... I don't have time to add a lot, but wanted to comment on the male OBGYN vs. female OBGYN...

My mother, nearly 60 years old, has always preferred male gynecologists. The reason? She feels that women, when looking at her genitals, are comparing to their own and this makes her uncomfortable.








:

I'm not saying it's sane... normal... or makes any sense at all. But that's one reason that women go to male doctors.


----------



## JanetF (Oct 31, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *applejuice* 
I wishe the feminist movement worked for women as pregnant beings and as mothers. It seems the modern feminist movement wants to make women into men instead of honoring the traditional and biological functions of women.

Well there are lots of feminismS and while liberal feminism, for example, is more about childcare and "competing" with men in the workforce, as a radical feminist birthworker I employ a feminist critique of birthing in my work. Of course this makes me a pariah with mainstream birth reformers in this country because they think they can "fix" maternity care and birth will Get Better and I think birth is occurring in the context of women's lives and Australian women's lives suck pretty badly. We have inordinately high rates of rape, particularly packrape, ad seriously low rates of conviction. We have high rates of domestic violence, low rates of parliamentary participation despite having compulsory voting. We can't magically change "birth" we have to support women to change their lives and then we will automatically demand better services thus making redundant all those knife happy surgeons. But this is a HUGE topic and I'm just idly typing over my morning coffee


----------



## amitymama (Nov 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ktbug* 

I also genuinely don't understand why men want to be OB/GYNs, except for the sadism. I really have trouble wrapping my head around a man going through medical school and residency, all that hard work, with the purely altruistic intention of "helping women". It just doesn't compute, and for that reason, I don't trust male OB/GYNs.

By that rationale, no one should do a job they haven't had direct experience of. AIDS workers who have never had AIDS can't be trusted by their patients -- why would they *want* to hang around AIDS patients all day if they've never even had it, ya know?







:

I think you may be misplacing some anger onto an entire gender and that's not very fair, considering if a man said the same thing of women we'd be hounding him into the ground. Men are not wholly evil and to pretend they are does feminism a real disservice.


----------



## jauncourt (Mar 15, 2007)

I've had a wonderful experience with a male OB, contrasted with an AWFUL, abusive experience with a female CNM (she screamed at me DURING THE DELIVERY for expressing pain during my first child's birth, because I "should have taken the painkillers, #%$^#%$#!"). I have to say that I have experienced about 50/50 good and bad female medical professionals in relation ot my pregnancies and births. There are good ones and bad ones.

As far as routine GYN care, in 20+ years of being a GYN patient (my first GYN appt was at 16), I have to say that most of the female NPs and GYNs I've ever seen have been so unpleasant as to make me surprised when I have a good experience with one (several have been rough, rude, and even outright abusive to me). I've only ever seen three or four male GYNs and the split was 50/50 good, respectful and dismissive, unpleasant (but, oddly, never outright abusive).

I think it comes down to whether a medical person of ANY gender or sexual orientation has a vocation for waht they do, has respect for their patients, and understands what they do and how it affects others. Gender often has little to do with it.

Maura


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amitymama* 
I've had these thoughts before too and it really is infuriating to hear so many stories about incompetent and authoritative male OBs who ruin the childbirth experience for women in labor. However, there are also female OBs who do the same thing. Maybe it's because they've been schooled in a male-dominated university/medical school/field and have just swallowed the bait, hook line and sinker, I don't know. Or they feel that to get ahead and do as well as the top men, they have to think, act and behave like them as well (aggressive, controlling, insensitive). There are definitely loads of perfectly understanding, lovely doctors, both male and female, out there but people aren't very vocal about their good experiences and that's why we only hear the horror stories. That is worth bearing in mind when it seems that EVERY SINGLE birth is controlled and underminded.

As far as banning male OB/GYNs...while in theory I agree and think it makes sense, in practice it sets a dangerous precedent about gender roles and what we are each 'allowed' to do or understand. I've had two gynos -- one male, one female. The female was rough, distant and cold. The male was gentle, compassionate and professional. Not everyone fits into the gender-specific stereotype and to pretend we do is dangerous, not only for birth but for other areas as well. If we ban men from the business of birth outright, they'll retaliate and want to ban females from doing traditionally male things or dealing with things that pertain to males. Besides, we're all humans and childbirth is the most basic, primal thing -- our species propogating itself. And as much as some people might not like it, men are involved in that process as well. It is their children being born and the future of their society as well, not just women's.

What we need is plain and simple -- more education and less propaganda and fear-mongering. Women need to be given the tools (aside from reading 'What to Expect' and watching a few lousy TLC shows) to educate and empower themselves. Males need to do the same. The problem is, they don't want to right now. People are happy living in ignorant bliss and like having someone make their decisions for them, especially when it comes to the human body. We've denigrated the body so much that most women have never even looked at or can name the parts of their genitals and men have no idea where their prostate is, let alone either sex knowing what a body is capable of in birth. Is it any wonder we leave it to these 'demi-gods' to tell us what to do? But that's not entirely men's fault. Women have given up their power without a fight, a long, long time ago, and it is going to take time to get it back. It's tempting to start a radical revolution but for it to be a true, long-lasting movement, it has to be done slowly, from within. We have to get inside people's lives, inside their heads and start, ever so slowly and subtly, putting seeds of doubt in their mind until they start learning for themselves again. I think that's really the best first step at the moment. Blaming men for the entire problem and banning them completely won't help anything right now, IMO.

I know I've rambled a bit here too (only on my first cup of coffee







but I do empathise with what you're saying and understand your frustration. I think a lot of us do. Hang in there mama, it will only get better if we have people like you, with such passion, to help fight birth's corner.










What a wonderful, thoughtful post. My second OB was literally a gentleman -- in the sense of _gentle man_. I had a section due to a number of issues which existed even before I got pregnant, but he never lost sight of the fact that there was a human woman on the other end of the scalpel. He treated me like an intelligent human being, and with genuine compassion.

I agree with so much of what this PP said that there's no way to improve on it.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

[


----------



## NatureMama3 (Feb 25, 2004)

Honestly I've run into worse female OBs than male. My male perinatologist was heaven-sent and just what I needed at the time (truly very high-risk twin pregnancy). I saw two very wonderful female midwives for my next birth and now feel I don't need an attendant beyond my very attentive husband. I don't want another woman there, I don't get along with women well enough.

I guess I'm just not a feminist if it means that men or women can't choose their own profession. I thought feminism was about choice. If women don't like the OB they have (or don't want an OB period or don't want a midwife period), choose otherwise. The dollars seem to make the ultimate decision these days.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

I am not a feminist (at least not in the sense that is used one MDC most often), but I agree with you.

And I am proud to say that my "patriarchal" husband was this for me: *there as her advocate and soldier.*

Without him, I would almost certainly have been badgered by _female_ caregivers into an induction or c-section. He was the *only* person in my off-line life that fully believed in my ability to birth my baby and in my body's "rightness" (for lack of a better word) for that. His railings against the US birth system and complaints about the treatment I got rival those frequently seen on this board.









I can understand mistrust of male OB's, and I personally wasn't comfortable with the one male OB I ever have, but I've never really had a good experience with a baby doctor ever, anyway, male or female. And there is a male midwife in our town who a feminist friend *raved* to me about, how awesome he is.


----------



## ktbug (Jul 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom* 
Without him, I would almost certainly have been badgered by _female_ caregivers into an induction or c-section.

Mine too, actually. Though we were in a hospital and he was holding up my left leg while an evil nurse held the right. He was the only thing that prevented me from having a section. Not that he did that verbally, at all, but his presence there just empowered me to do what I knew I could do, and not listen to the docs and nurses and medwife.

It occurs to me, now, that my position on this is really pretty far from what is generally understood as classical neofeminism - that is, gender equality and female enfranchisement/empowerment. I really feel, in my heart of hearts, that this is something that those of the male gender (for the most part) are less qualified to do than those of the female gender. That's acutally not very feminist at all, come to think of it.









I'm not here to say men are wholly evil. I just don't want them around my birth process. And this:

Quote:

it seems that you believe all men find all women inferior and therefore not worth caring for as patients. Some people are fascinated with the brain. Some with the heart and lungs. Others with the bowel. What's so wierd about being fascinated with the reproductive system?
What's weird, to me, is a man having a clinical fascination with the female reproductive system, so much so that he would go deeply into debt and devote a great percentage of his intellect to the nitty-gritties of gynecology and obstetrics. That stat applejuice quoted is very telling. OB work is profitable and not nearly as challenging as neurosurgery or pediatric oncology. I admit it, I'm a raging man-hater, and I think that deep down, many if not most men are tempted to dominate and control women on some level. Coming from that perspective, it may just be my inherent distrust of men in positions of power that leads me to say things like "men have no place in my birth process". That may be so. It doesn't change my gut feeling, however, that male OB/GYNs are creepy and not to be trusted.

This is not to say that I think many female OB/GYNs are to be trusted simply by virtue of their gender. The things you have to do to become a doctor are richly steeped in patriarchal tradition, and the women who have walked that road have had to buy into at least some of it to get where they are. It makes for a lousy system of care.

Which is why I always say, next time I'm going to the woods with a bottle of wine, my husband, and some towels. If I practiced what I preached, you'd be reading "priestess" in place of "husband". Maybe some pot. No MDs.


----------



## LemonPie (Sep 18, 2006)

Quote:

And there is a male midwife in our town who a feminist friend *raved* to me about, how awesome he is.
I always wondered if there were male midwives around anywhere!

Quote:

What's weird, to me, is a man having a clinical fascination with the female reproductive system, so much so that he would go deeply into debt and devote a great percentage of his intellect to the nitty-gritties of gynecology and obstetrics.
I think this viewpoint is demeaning to both men and women. It implies that women aren't WORTH studying and it implies that men have less-than-stellar ideals when they are interested in the way the feminine body works.

Quote:

OB work is profitable and not nearly as challenging as neurosurgery or pediatric oncology.
That may be true, but it doesn't make it less _worthy_ work. For a man or a woman.

I guess I just really despise the idea that either gender is superior to the other. Why can't we celebrate female strength, talent, wisdom, intelligence, etc. without putting men down in the process? If you don't feel comfortable birthing with a man, that's fine. That's your reality. Totally get that. But that doesn't mean that ALL men need to be removed from the birthing arena simply because they are men.

Jen


----------



## amitymama (Nov 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *applejuice* 
me either...

There are studies that show that the top 10% of medical school graduate usually go into cardiology and internal medicine. Conversely, most of the bottom 10% of medical school graduates gravitate to obstetrics. Why?

Maybe that was the 10% who actually have a heart and want to help bring life into the world instead of watching people die and be sick?


----------



## amitymama (Nov 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ktbug* 
What's weird, to me, is a man having a clinical fascination with the female reproductive system, so much so that he would go deeply into debt and devote a great percentage of his intellect to the nitty-gritties of gynecology and obstetrics. That stat applejuice quoted is very telling. OB work is profitable and not nearly as challenging as neurosurgery or pediatric oncology.

Do people really forget that creating babies is not a solely female endeavour? Birth may be specifically female but women do not have a monopoly on reproduction. To be interested in helping birthing women means they would be interested in not only the female reproductive system but the creation and progression of life. What's so weird about that? We need *more* men who care about things like that instead of opting to become a boob job surgeon.


----------



## NatureMama3 (Feb 25, 2004)

I don't know about male OBs, as I haven't asked their motivation, but I can understand the desire to go into baby-birthing. Having seen births besides my own, they are amazing! Who wouldn't want to be part of bringing new life into the world? So much of medicine is death and dying and here's one that is focused on LIFE!


----------



## gcgirl (Apr 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babymonster* 
I also find it odd that male OBGYNs are the majority - they specialise in body parts that they don't even have, and processes that they can never go through.

It does seem odd, but for some of them maybe it's the chance to be a part of something they can never go through themselves.

For others, it's probably the $$$, although the hours are crap.


----------



## mamabadger (Apr 21, 2006)

I agree that OBs, including male OBs, are not evil or anti-woman, but the obstetric system certainly is. It was established by an all-male medical system at a time when women were regarded as inferior and contemptible, and the entire system is based on that attitude. It has changed somewhat over the years, but not nearly enough.

I, also, don't understand why men go into gynecology. Equating it with specializing in cardiac medicine or podiatry is just ignoring the obvious. Having a strange man put his fingers up your vagina or feel your breasts involves more issues than I can name - modesty issues, power issues, you name it. We have agreed to just pretend there is nothing to it, but that just isn't the case. I think there is something inherently demeaning in a woman being asked to lie down, put her legs in stirrups, and let some man rummage around in there. I am also suspicious of the tendency to advise pelvic exams far more frequently than preventive health care warrants. I'm not saying OB/GYNs are perverts, just that they are acting on the assumption that female organs are suspect and more prone to failure than usual, and need to be constantly monitored.

When women first began going to male doctors for intimate exams and childbirth, it was agreed that the process would offend their modesty, but since only men could be doctors in those days, women were encouraged to suppress those feelings in order to get the health care they needed. Maybe that was a valid point; but today, women are able to become doctors. Women patients no longer have to endure this situation. So _why are men still becoming gynecologists?_


----------



## amitymama (Nov 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
Having a strange man put his fingers up your vagina or feel your breasts involves more issues than I can name - modesty issues, power issues, you name it. We have agreed to just pretend there is nothing to it, but that just isn't the case. I think there is something inherently demeaning in a woman being asked to lie down, put her legs in stirrups, and let some man rummage around in there.

But aren't the ideas that women need to preserve their 'modesty' and that being naked in front of a strange man renders a woman powerless derived from the very patriarchal rules that were imposed on women to begin with? It wasn't women who came up with the idea of being ashamed of their naked bodies and being told to hide them away lest they intice unwanted male attention, it was men. Before Eve was made to feel like a slut for not having her fig leaves in the right place, neither she nor Adam probably gave their bodies much thought.

I thougth that part of the movement so intrinsic to MDC philosophy works to redefine shame and modesty with regards to our bodies and their processes which is why we embrace pregnancy and our changing bodies instead of hiding them, regard birth as a woman's primal right of passage and insist that breastfeeding is the most natural, normal thing in the world and has nothing to do with preconceived ideas of what women 'should' do according to outdated notions.

Quote:

I am also suspicious of the tendency to advise pelvic exams far more frequently than preventive health care warrants. I'm not saying OB/GYNs are perverts, just that they are acting on the assumption that female organs are suspect and more prone to failure than usual, and need to be constantly monitored.
Well, in my experience and estimation, our reproductive organs ARE more prone to problems simply because they are much more complex than the male reproductive system. We have a lot going on down there and for men it's fairly simple and straightforward. And frankly, I *do* know a lot of women who have had some kind of problem, be it infertility, ovarian cysts, cancerous cervical cells, ectopic pregnancies, unusual bleeding, infections, etc..Do you know many women who have never had a problem with their reproductive organs at all? Compare that number to men who have similar problems and one can see why there are more professionals dedicated to female reproductive health. It's simple supply and demand, really.

Quote:

When women first began going to male doctors for intimate exams and childbirth, it was agreed that the process would offend their modesty, but since only men could be doctors in those days, women were encouraged to suppress those feelings in order to get the health care they needed. Maybe that was a valid point; but today, women are able to become doctors. Women patients no longer have to endure this situation. So _why are men still becoming gynecologists?_
While I understand what you're saying in a historical context, I still maintain that those feelings of having to preserve modesty and feel ashamed of their bodies came from the patriarchal system itself, not from how women innately feel. So if we have been able to evolve past that shame and taboo (though I understand that not all women have and that's perfectly ok with me if they just don't feel comfy having a male attend to them), why would we want to take a step back?

As for why men are becoming gynecologists, I suspect some of them do it because they truly care or are interested in female reproduction and want to help them, and some do it because there's a gap there that needs filling and they can get better pay than by becoming a general practitioner. Who knows, there are as many answers to that question as there are gynos so I guess we'd have to survey them to get an accurate assessment.


----------



## mamabadger (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amitymama* 
It wasn't women who came up with the idea of being ashamed of their naked bodies and being told to hide them away lest they intice unwanted male attention, it was men.

Neither men nor women, in this society, can appear naked in public. That was not imposed on one sex by the other; it is a rule that applies to everyone, except very young children. There is no society on earth that does not have some restrictions on nakedness.

Quote:

Before Eve was made to feel like a slut for not having her fig leaves in the right place, neither she nor Adam probably gave their bodies much thought.
This is not the place to debate Biblical interpretation, but in brief, _both_ Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness and covered themselves, it was due to a spiritual change and not some new regulation on female dress, and the issue of "sluttiness" had not yet arisen.

Quote:

Well, in my experience and estimation, our reproductive organs ARE more prone to problems simply because they are much more complex than the male reproductive system. <skip> Do you know many women who have never had a problem with their reproductive organs at all? Compare that number to men who have similar problems and one can see why there are more professionals dedicated to female reproductive health. It's simple supply and demand, really.
The female rep. system may be a bit more complex, but still not enough to explain the degree of watchfulness and intervention the medical system calls for. For example, as I understand it, men are about as likely to experience prostate cancer as women are to encounter breast cancer. Are boys encouraged to have a prostate exam every six months, beginning when they are 12 or 13? Also, much of an OB/GYN's work consists of intervening in the process of childbirth. Supposedly, female reproduction is fraught with problems, which is why almost a third of us "need" major surgery in order to give birth, or why so many thousands of us "need" a hysterectomy. Sorry, I'm still suspicious.

Quote:

While I understand what you're saying in a historical context, I still maintain that those feelings of having to preserve modesty and feel ashamed of their bodies came from the patriarchal system itself, not from how women innately feel. So if we have been able to evolve past that shame and taboo (though I understand that not all women have and that's perfectly ok with me if they just don't feel comfy having a male attend to them), why would we want to take a step back?
Even (I would say, _especially_) the most confident, liberated, self-aware woman has limits on who can touch her, where, and how. If that were not the case, why would we even have the concept of sexual assault? Those limits almost invariably include strange men handling their genitals in an office setting. Most women and girls maintain the concept of "private parts" and are definitely "not comfy" with having just anyone handle them there.
I have heard many women describe the pelvic exam as demeaning; many girls relate how traumatic it was to be forced by their mothers to go through this supposed rite of passage when they had just reached puberty; and past victims of sexual assault describe the effort it took to endure being examined intimately by a male doctor. They make themselves go through it because they are told that it is necessary to their continued health.

They are also told that sensible, mature women have no problem with it. That is the attitude I find most objectionable: the idea that women who do not want to undress in front of a strange man, have their breasts and genitals examined by him, are actually repressed, backward, and shame-filled.

We hear much the same thing about childbirth, that women who object to having procedures done on them without their consent, who resent the lack of privacy and respect in a typical delivery room, are women who simply have "issues." Maybe they don't. Maybe they are the ones who are the most in touch with their own feelings, and refuse to repress them.


----------



## Sonnenwende (Sep 9, 2006)

Quote:

..but a woman who employs a male OB as her birth attendant is in for a special kind of hell.
If you say so. My birth was attended by a male OB and a female CNM. Neither I would really rate better than the other. The midwife was dismissive of my pain before the birth (diddled around with getting the epidural ordered like I asked because I don't think she took me seriously) and the OB of it after (local only took on one side when he was stitching me up). They both sucked like that. I don't think their genitalia had much to do with it.


----------



## jrojala (Aug 10, 2006)

:


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

[


----------



## jrojala (Aug 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sonnenwende* 
If you say so. My birth was attended by a male OB and a female CNM. Neither I would really rate better than the other. The midwife was dismissive of my pain before the birth (diddled around with getting the epidural ordered like I asked because I don't think she took me seriously) and the OB of it after (local only took on one side when he was stitching me up). They both sucked like that. I don't think their genitalia had much to do with it.

fwiw, I don't think anyone is trying to say vagina=good birth attendant.


----------



## Sonnenwende (Sep 9, 2006)

I am pretty sure the thread is trying to say the lack of one makes inherently an inferior quality one though. If not, what is this about?

I don't believe gender makes a difference even in this arena. I don't feel more or less comfortable with a man OB/GYN than I do with a woman OB/GYN. I don't think either one are better or worse. Can they do the job well and treat me with respect? That is what matters. Neither of those qualities I believe have anything to do with gender.


----------



## elanorh (Feb 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
<snip>

I, also, don't understand why men go into gynecology. Equating it with specializing in cardiac medicine or podiatry is just ignoring the obvious. Having a strange man put his fingers up your vagina or feel your breasts involves more issues than I can name - modesty issues, power issues, you name it. We have agreed to just pretend there is nothing to it, but that just isn't the case. I think there is something inherently demeaning in a woman being asked to lie down, put her legs in stirrups, and let some man rummage around in there. I am also suspicious of the tendency to advise pelvic exams far more frequently than preventive health care warrants. I'm not saying OB/GYNs are perverts, just that they are acting on the assumption that female organs are suspect and more prone to failure than usual, and need to be constantly monitored.
<snip>

Our CNP does the annual exams - and most of the early pregnancy exams. OB doesn't become involved (other than meeting mom) 'til around 6 months. He does every other appointment from then on, and the last month's appointments and delivery, and the 6 week appointment (although I think the CNP does that too sometimes).

His job is to assist with birth - I suppose he meets with older patients or patients that the CNP has flagged with an issue or something but it's the CNP who does most of the "mundane" stuff. And incidentally their office has just started doing pelvics every three years, for women who are HPV free and over thirty with a monogamous relationship.









I feel like some of the attitude in this thread is that males, lacking female organs, must be somehow inferior or perverted (or sadistic) to want to be involved in a medical area which serves women. So, what's up with all the veterinarians out there? They must be super-sickos then, hmmm?







:

I can totally empathize (and agree) with the fact that birthing as practiced in the USA today *by and large* is disempowering and unhealthy for women and their children. And that does have a lot to do with the medical system created by and run by men. But to move from that fact, and the need for women to be allowed the power of their own births without meddling or intervention (unless warranted) -- to removing all men other than the woman's partner from the room unless an emergency c/s is necessary (and preferably not even then, only a female OB for that too) -- that goes too far. And as we've already observed, there are plenty of awful female OBs too.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2Bugs* 
By that logic, should we say that all med students who specialize in pediatrics are pedophiles?


Some of you that agree with the OP, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this question.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

I don't believe that normal birth should be in the hands of surgeons, regardless of their gender.

Here's a fascinating (and quite long) article by Robbie Davis-Floyd that addresses sexism in the current birth culture. I highly recommend---very relevant


----------



## amitymama (Nov 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
Neither men nor women, in this society, can appear naked in public. That was not imposed on one sex by the other; it is a rule that applies to everyone, except very young children. There is no society on earth that does not have some restrictions on nakedness. This is not the place to debate Biblical interpretation, but in brief, _both_ Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness and covered themselves, it was due to a spiritual change and not some new regulation on female dress, and the issue of "sluttiness" had not yet arisen.

Yes, _everyone_ covers up to some extent, though not all out of shame or 'modesty' but for protection from the elements. How else do you explain indigenous tribes where the men simply wear a loincloth and women over cover their bottom half? The rule that women must cover their breasts and torsos came from _somewhere_ so if it wasn't imposed by men (as women had absolutely no say in these things back then), who was it imposed by? I don't buy the story that both men and women woke up one day and felt compelled to hide their bodies from one another. And I don't want to get into Biblical interpretation either but wasn't the Bible written by men? They can say whatever they want about what Adam and Eve did or thought. But that is a whole 'nother topic so I won't divert into that can of worms.









Quote:

The female rep. system may be a bit more complex, but still not enough to explain the degree of watchfulness and intervention the medical system calls for. For example, as I understand it, men are about as likely to experience prostate cancer as women are to encounter breast cancer. Are boys encouraged to have a prostate exam every six months, beginning when they are 12 or 13?
The rate for breast cancer is about 10% higher than that for prostate cancer. I would argue that the rates are actually probably the same but because so much more money and resources are put into breast cancer awareness (MUCH more than prostate), it isn't diagnosed in some men. I'm not sure I understand your point anyway -- are you saying you think we should start ignoring women's health issues because it's sexist that men aren't scrutinized to the same level? If anything, that to me says that men are the ones being let down -- all of the celebrity support, marathons, walks, ribbons, fundraising campaigns, etc.. are for women and breast cancer. Not many black-tie fundraising dinners for prostate cancer, ya know?

Quote:

Also, much of an OB/GYN's work consists of intervening in the process of childbirth. Supposedly, female reproduction is fraught with problems, which is why almost a third of us "need" major surgery in order to give birth, or why so many thousands of us "need" a hysterectomy. Sorry, I'm still suspicious.
Which issue are we talking about here -- reproductive health/organs or birth? The two are related, of course, but they are not mutually inclusive. A woman who never gives birth can still have reproductive problems. I agree that birth is intervened in way too much, but you can't lump preventative reproductive health in with childbirth and dismiss all OB/GYNs as too involved. If they were disinterested and women were dying left and right of ectopic pregnancies, ovarian cysts, burst fallopian tubes, cervical cancer, bacterial infections, etc.. we'd be hounding the medical professions to do more. So while I agree with you that there is too much intervention in birth, I don't agree that OB/GYNs are always too interventionist when it comes to general health and preventative measures. Besides, we can (or should be able to, ideally) have a gyno for our annual exams and repro. health but not use an OB for birth. I see a gyno but had only midwives at the birth of my daughter. That doesn't mean I find all obstetrics unnecessary.

Quote:

Even (I would say, _especially_) the most confident, liberated, self-aware woman has limits on who can touch her, where, and how. If that were not the case, why would we even have the concept of sexual assault? Those limits almost invariably include strange men handling their genitals in an office setting. Most women and girls maintain the concept of "private parts" and are definitely "not comfy" with having just anyone handle them there.
Of course we all have limits on who touches us, and where and how. But most women are able to differentiate between unwanted, wanted and necessary touch. A lover's touch is different from a stranger's groping and both of those are different from a medical professional's. I understand that some people have a difficult time separating the different kinds of touch, most likely from some kind of trauma or abuse they suffered earlier in life, but that still doesn't give anyone the right to use their personal experiences and feelings to label an entire group of people or even an entire gender as sadist or having suspicious intentions.

Quote:

I have heard many women describe the pelvic exam as demeaning; many girls relate how traumatic it was to be forced by their mothers to go through this supposed rite of passage when they had just reached puberty; and past victims of sexual assault describe the effort it took to endure being examined intimately by a male doctor. They make themselves go through it because they are told that it is necessary to their continued health.

They are also told that sensible, mature women have no problem with it. That is the attitude I find most objectionable: the idea that women who do not want to undress in front of a strange man, have their breasts and genitals examined by him, are actually repressed, backward, and shame-filled.
I understand what you are saying and I have nothing by sympathy and concern for those women who felt forced into something they didn't want or suffered abuse that heightened their fear of the whole process. But I still maintain that to use a small percentage of people's experiences to label a whole group and medical practice (female repro health) as 'bad' isn't very responsible. And if it's specifically men they have a fear of, there are plenty of female doctors they can see. Though as many of us can attest, having a female doctor will not ensure a good experience. Women can feel just as violated by a woman as they do a man.

What an interesting topic, I've really enjoyed discussing this!


----------



## mamabadger (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amitymama* 
Yes, _everyone_ covers up to some extent, though not all out of shame or 'modesty' but for protection from the elements.

That simply isn't true. People wear clothing even in warm climates where there is no obvious need for it. The concept of nakedness is universal. Just because a culture wears far less clothing than we do does not mean they are casual about it. Even societies which limit themselves to a loincloth would never dream of going around without one. It is important to respect this aspect of humanity.

Quote:

Of course we all have limits on who touches us, and where and how. But most women are able to differentiate between unwanted, wanted and necessary touch. A lover's touch is different from a stranger's groping and both of those are different from a medical professional's. I understand that some people have a difficult time separating the different kinds of touch, most likely from some kind of trauma or abuse they suffered earlier in life, but that still doesn't give anyone the right to use their personal experiences and feelings to label an entire group of people or even an entire gender as sadist or having suspicious intentions.
<skip>
I understand what you are saying and I have nothing by sympathy and concern for those women who felt forced into something they didn't want or suffered abuse that heightened their fear of the whole process. But I still maintain that to use a small percentage of people's experiences to label a whole group and medical practice (female repro health) as 'bad' isn't very responsible. And if it's specifically men they have a fear of, there are plenty of female doctors they can see. Though as many of us can attest, having a female doctor will not ensure a good experience. Women can feel just as violated by a woman as they do a man.
I was not trying to say anything quite so sweeping. Very simply, who can touch us and how, where and with whom we can be naked, are absolutely basic to the psyche of any human being. In this part of the world, we have separate men's and women's showers, changing rooms, bathrooms. If a woman is undressed in a women's facility and a man enters, it had better be for a spectacularly good reason. Otherwise, she will feel uneasy, shocked, vulnerable, humiliated, _even if she is well-adjusted...even if she has never experienced sexual abuse._ In this society, then, to be examined by a male gynecologist involves overcoming, or suppressing, our most basic feelings. The question I ask is, *why should we have to?*

Quote:

The rate for breast cancer is about 10% higher than that for prostate cancer. I would argue that the rates are actually probably the same but because so much more money and resources are put into breast cancer awareness (MUCH more than prostate), it isn't diagnosed in some men. I'm not sure I understand your point anyway -- are you saying you think we should start ignoring women's health issues because it's sexist that men aren't scrutinized to the same level?
No, I am saying that much more time is spent scrutinizing female body parts because the attitude of medicine is that they are inherently flawed and in need of constant medical management.

Quote:

Which issue are we talking about here -- reproductive health/organs or birth? The two are related, of course, but they are not mutually inclusive. A woman who never gives birth can still have reproductive problems. I agree that birth is intervened in way too much, but you can't lump preventative reproductive health in with childbirth and dismiss all OB/GYNs as too involved.
To me, they are part of the same issue - the originally all male medical system's attitude to the female body. The Robbie Davis-Floyd article that Georgia linked to explains this much better than I could...

Quote:

It has been a recurrent theme in American medicine that to remove a woman's sexual organs is to restore her body to full health and greater potential for productive life. In short, under the technocratic model the female body is viewed as an abnormal, unpredictable, and inherently defective machine.
It is bad enough that this attitude is so ingrained in medicine; what is far worse is that so many women have absorbed it to the point that they feel that considering their own bodies defective is a mark of intelligence and liberation, rather than a form of self-loathing.


----------



## dinahx (Sep 17, 2005)

Quote:

It is bad enough that this attitude is so ingrained in medicine; what is far worse is that so many women have absorbed it to the point that they feel that considering their own bodies defective is a mark of intelligence and liberation, rather than a form of self-loathing.
So true.


----------



## Sonnenwende (Sep 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
I was not trying to say anything quite so sweeping. Very simply, who can touch us and how, where and with whom we can be naked, are absolutely basic to the psyche of any human being. In this part of the world, we have separate men's and women's showers, changing rooms, bathrooms. If a woman is undressed in a women's facility and a man enters, it had better be for a spectacularly good reason. Otherwise, she will feel uneasy, shocked, vulnerable, humiliated, _even if she is well-adjusted...even if she has never experienced sexual abuse._ In this society, then, to be examined by a male gynecologist involves overcoming, or suppressing, our most basic feelings. The question I ask is, *why should we have to?*

But I don't feel that way, quite frankly. Asking a male gyno to look at my vagina like I asked him to is a darn good reason for me to be partially naked for him. I don't feel like I am overcoming or suppressing anything. I don't feel like I should be made to feel like I should have to suppress anything either because some people have hangups about it. Not like I am asking the mailman to come examine this spot on my clitoris. This is a guy who spent years and years studying the female body in a medical/academic setting. There is a world of difference in my mind between the male gyno and just some guy on the street in terms of how I feel about modesty.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amitymama* 
But aren't the ideas that women need to preserve their 'modesty' and that being naked in front of a strange man renders a woman powerless derived from the very patriarchal rules that were imposed on women to begin with?

It's irrelevant. Because neither exposing nor hiding ourselves will overcome the system. Hiding ourselves strengthens it; exposing ourselves make us vulnerable to it. There's a third option though: to not engage with it to begin with.

Quote:

I thougth that part of the movement so intrinsic to MDC philosophy works to redefine shame and modesty with regards to our bodies and their processes which is why we embrace pregnancy and our changing bodies instead of hiding them, regard birth as a woman's primal right of passage and insist that breastfeeding is the most natural, normal thing in the world and has nothing to do with preconceived ideas of what women 'should' do according to outdated notions.
I'm sorry, I just think you are entirely missing the point. Moving beyond shame does not mean moving beyond the body and the birth process as sacred and primal/sexual. I can be fully accepting of my body and not ashamed of it, _and_ not want someone sticking their fingers up me and directing my birth. Or even witnessing it. I don't want someone "letting" me, I don't want someone to adulate for their role in my birth, I don't want someone to be an authority figure. Denying someone something s/he has no rightful place in to begin with is hardly the same thing as "hiding".

But why not men especially? Because there _is_ more to it than modesty. There is more to it, even, than the patriarchy. And I think that while some might not have intellectualized it, they feel it in their gut nonetheless. It is nothing but _arrogance_ to come alone and tell those people, "oh, if you only weren't ashamed of your body, you could be enlightened enough to see that male is just the same in all respects as female. Tsk." Again, that's completely missing the point. In a sacred and/or primal/sexual sense it may be inappropriate to have a particular person present specifically because of their gender or sexual orientation.

If birth isn't simply clinical -- if it is hormonal and emotional and sexual and primal -- then these things _have_ to matter.


----------



## mamabadger (Apr 21, 2006)

Fourlittlebirds: Very well said!


----------



## Romana (Mar 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ktbug* 
From my point of view, as a woman, a mother, and a feminist, however, I just don't see the sense in trusting the care of my female parts to a person who does not have those parts. It's as strange a suggestion to me as seeing a veterinarian. I didn't say men should be outright banned from OB/GYNing, that they shouldn't be allowed to be baby/mama doctors. And people have the right to choose whatever they want.

I don't believe that either of my midwives have had children themselves. I don't think that disqualifies them from attending my birth. But I would expect that, for you, in addition to "having the parts," they should have given birth. How can you trust your care to a woman who has not experienced birth? How is a woman who has not experienced pregnancy or birth not similar to a man in terms of being qualified on the basis of physical characteristics/experiences?

A male FP, midwife, or OB has had all the training to become whatever title he has. I don't understand the veterinarian reference because a veterinarian isn't trained to attend birth or be a baby/mama doctor, but the male version of the female equivalent (MW, OB, FP) has.

Quote:

I also genuinely don't understand why men want to be OB/GYNs, except for the sadism. I really have trouble wrapping my head around a man going through medical school and residency, all that hard work, with the purely altruistic intention of "helping women". It just doesn't compute, and for that reason, I don't trust male OB/GYNs.
Many, if not most, doctors don't go to medical school because they want to "help people." They go because they find the subject interesting, the prestige alluring, or the salary compensable. They go because science is what they're best at and Mom and Dad want them to be doctors. There are many reasons, but honestly, "helping people" is pretty far down the list for many, if not most medical students (speaking from experience here).

A good friend of mine (male) found that he loved his OB rotation. He loved caring for women during birth but especially loved babies and seeing them come into the world healthy. He isn't going to be an OB, but he's seriously considering pediatrics. His wife also did an OB rotation, and HATED it. Every. freakin. minute. of it. Would complain end over end about being tired and screaming women and amniotic fluid all over her.

Then there's my good friend (female) who has decided to do OB-GYN. She thought about midwifery but doesn't have the patience to sit through a natural birth. She likes the "predictability" of the medical, managed model of birth even though she's said she sees how beneficial natural birth is for mothers and babies. She also loves performing surgery, and I think she really likes that a good portion of the time the birth ends in c/s and she gets to do that, which is her favorite thing in OB-GYN (surgery, but esp. c/s because it is a "positive" surgery in comparison with, say, tumor removal or hysterectomy).

I don't think women should ever _have_ to see male FP/OB/MWs. I ended up having to do this because I wanted to have a NCB and a homebirth and a male FP was the only option that I could find. Didn't get the homebirth anyway, and won't be returning to that particular doctor . . . unless I have twins or a breech. Why? Because he's the only one I know of who will do them vaginal, without forcing a woman to be on the operating table to be allowed to give it a try. Ideal? No. Only option other than UC? Yes. Would I rather that he just not have gone into FP, doing homebirths for 25 years and providing an option that was otherwise practically unheard of in the area, supporting natural birth while everyone else got more and more medical? No way. And I don't think that his sex should ever have been a reason to keep him from doing the good and important work he's done for many years, even though he's not my very favorite (I don't have a favorite doctor; I tend not to like them very much at all).

I think birth is absolutely a feminist issue, but I don't understand why that necessarily excludes men. My dh is afraid of the word "feminist" because of the social and cultural baggage it has, but behind closed doors doesn't mind me pointing out that he's a feminist and will acknowledge it "according to my definition of feminism." I think the birth-feminism intersection has far more to do with information, choice, respect, and autonomy than whether the HCP is male or female.

I think the first step to creating a healthier birth environment is taking surgeons out of the picture entirely unless actually needed - whether they be male or female surgeons. And based on my own personal comfort level, I would always see a female GYN for GYN issues. I wouldn't even consider taking my daughter to a male GYN for her first exam nor someone I hadn't given a "test drive" to previously (i.e., experienced an exam at her hands). My mom had that much courtesy and thoughtfulness for me and I'll certainly repeat it for my daughters.


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

oh, I have so much to add to this! so much! I agree alot with the OP....I have to do some housework stuff, ponder the issue and I'll come back to blab about my feelings.








oh, so glad Linda conveyed her feelings on this...makes it much easier to form my own thoughts.


----------



## auntiehallie (Apr 25, 2005)

Quote:

We hear much the same thing about childbirth, that women who object to having procedures done on them without their consent, who resent the lack of privacy and respect in a typical delivery room, are women who simply have "issues." Maybe they don't. Maybe they are the ones who are the most in touch with their own feelings, and refuse to repress them.
i fully agree with this statement.

you know, i have a hard time seeing this as a feminist issue - maybe because it shouldn't be an issue at all. i don't see why *anyone* - male or female; doctor or midwife; mother or sister, even - should be directing any birth except her own. hell, to be directing anyone else's *life* but her own. pregnancy and birth are normal states within the adult female experience. they are part of life, not departures from it. sadly, these stages are not treated this way by the western medical model, which is where we have the problem. asking a health care provider to direct my health _when i don't have a specific job for them to do_ is an essential expression of mistrust in my body, isn't it? if i see my healthy state as abnormal and in need of management, some provider will surely take my money to do a job that doesn't need doing.

whether i choose one gender of provider over another isn't as important as how i see my role as consumer of health care services generally. if i suspect that my health needs attention beyond my capability to perform it for myself, it really is *my* job to do the legwork so that i can ask specifically for a service to be provided for me. when i don't have a clear need, but insist on having services performed for me, i can hardly complain when i'm taken advantage of by men or by women. it's equal opportunity in that regard.

personally, i see routine physical examinations as ridiculous, and routine prenatal care equally bizarre. what information can be had under a microscope that i can't intuit by living with myself every day? just because i *can* be examined under a microscope doesn't mean that i *should be* - i am not consciously constructing myself (or a baby) at the molecular level. knowing what i know at the conscious level must be enough to maintain health; without that basic trust in my own body, how would i even get out of bed in the morning? never mind grow a baby.

but women are clearly conditioned to accept prenatal care and strangers (male or female) molesting their bodies in a professional capacity as 'normal' and 'health care'. similarly, we are conditioned to expect direction in birth as normal. it is not normal, none of it is, and i can prove it: imagine a healthy couple choosing to copulate in a doctor's office or a hospital _just in case something goes wrong_. you would ask yourself what kind of nuts these people were (i would), because it is not normal. imagine a gastroenterologist shoving a camera down your esophagus while you ate to examine your digestion habits. it could be done, sure, but wouldn't it be unpleasant and unnecessary? would i expect accurate information about my body to be gleaned under these strange circumstances? information can be had, surely - but is it properly defined as 'health care'? or is it clear by analogy that these are 'unnecessarily and invasive interventions in a normal process'? how could you fail to suffer, say, indigestion? similarly, how could a healthy body birth normally while being handled and observed?

no one suggests that your digestive tract be examined - even the first time you use it - in case something goes wrong. no one condemned me as careless with my health for lacking a doctor's care on the scene when i first used my body for vaginal intercourse - even though i'd never used it in such a way before. why should birth be different? assuming you are a healthy person who's enjoyed an unremarkable pregnancy, why would you elect to have any attendant at your birth at all, male or female? i simply can not see a place for a manager. it's laughable, even, except that we don't laugh - we just expect it to be so. we shouldn't. all through the process from conception to birth - there's just no place for management.

no one is standing by when you conceive. no one manages all forty weeks of your life while you gestate your baby. similarly, no one should be on hand telling you how to birth one. it's as simple as that.

i think that if i throw my (healthy) self into the hands of a doctor and ask them to tell me what to do with my body, i am right to expect that that person (indeed, that industry) is going to evolve as an authoritarian, telling me what to do and how to do it, and comparing me with others. we need to recognize how useless this is. we need to regain faith in ourselves. we need to see ourselves as our own OB/Gyn (or midwife) and the people we employ to help us as servants. what they do for us is up to us to request, not up to them to direct.


----------



## QueenOfThePride (May 26, 2005)

I would just like to put out the idea that veterinarians deal with bodies that are _vastly_ different from their own. So the arguement that men shouldn't be OB/GYNs just because they don't have the parts isn't really sound logic. I've assisted with many surgeries on the cows' fourth stomach. I've never heard of a person having four stomachs.

There are other social issues here, but the 'not having the equipment' argument is weak.


----------



## doctorjen (May 29, 2003)

I think the whole field of reproductive health care for women involves a lot of power politics. Traditionally, the system is paternalistic - in the sense that the doctor is seen as the keeper of knowledge and the woman the potentially flawed body (alternatively, some practioners clearly view women as definitely flawed, an accident waiting to happen so to speak.) There is also the dynamic of authority figures often seen in doctor-patient relationships. Do any literature search on "compliance" or "adherence" to see that the accepted dynamic is the doctor prescribes and the patient complies (or doesn't comply, which leads to all the literature on non-compliance!)
Added to that are gender role politics in many doctor-patient relationships. Are all male health care providers who take care of women misogynistic and sadistic? Nah, not anymore than all female care providers are nuturing and understanding.

Talking about individual providers, it's easy to see that there are good and bad types of every provider, male, female, midwife, OB, FP, whatever. The very best care I've ever had was from a male FP, the worst from a female OB. We can talk until we are blue in the face about our individual experiences and individual docs and everyone is going to have slightly different experiences with slightly different takes on the whole thing.
When we look at the system as a whole (talking about medicalized obstetrics and gynecology) it is hard to ignore the overall woman-as-broken theme and the power and gender politics that weave through medical care. The historically largely male, largely white OBs have made medicalized obstetrics overall pretty paternalistic, patriarchal, and overpowering. Women in this system are not generally seen as intelligent, sensible beings capable of rational thought. Because the system is like this, many (most?) individual providers are like this.

Are women inherently better birth attendants? It's hard for me to say from my experiences. Perhaps in a midwifery model they are, but in the medical model I trained and practiced in, women who go into medicine and OB in particular often deliberately repress any nurturing or understanding feelings to survive their training and professional life. Sometimes, I think female doctors go even farther the other way, feeling that if they were able to internalize the medical model, suppress their "female weaknesses" and survive in the paternalistic/patriarchal medical model, any woman who can not is weak, emotional, and stupid. Therefore, patients (and I use that word deliberately rather than one with more equality in it) are to be persuaded, controlled, or coerced into doing what the medical model deems normal and right, and any disagreements or conflict are seen as arising from the weaker patient's lack of knowledge or lack of strength.

In my own training, I saw women providers, who I thought before hand would feel more of a bond with their clients, be belittling, dismissive, controlling, and sometimes outright cruel. It was like women could not allow themselves to have any softer emotions like compassion or empathy for their clients because they needed to maintain their position of power.

My own original interest in any kind of medicine, and eventually women's health as my strongest love, came out of an interest in feminism and power. The power politics of doctor-patient relationships are something I try to always, always be conscious of and consciously try to discourage. If individual women truly held the power in reproductive healthcare relationships, perhaps there would be less men interested in the field.


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

Wow... just wow. I can't believe the arrogance that goes into a statement like 'Why would men want to get into OB/GYN anyway?'. Good grief! Obstetrics is uniquely rewarding--it's about new life. Some male med students probably find it fascinating. Some probably discover they have an unexpected talent for it. Some probably realise that they don't want to go into surgery/oncology/pediatrics after all, and that they prefer OB/GYN. Some probably hear horror stories of bad OB/GYN staff and want to remedy the situation by being good OB/GYN staff. Some probably make the decision based on work/life balance, because the money and hours allow them to spend time with family. Some probably do it because there's a shortage of OB/GYNs in the area and they're encouraged to fill the gap. There are a thousand reasons! Just like women who go into OB/GYN are motivated by a thousand reasons! You think all female OB/GYNs are motivated by identical feminist, woman-serving causes?

The 'parts they don't have' argument is equally ludicrous. As has been pointed out, vets take care of creatures with entirely different physiologies. Not to mention the WOMEN doctors who help cure patients with prostate or testicular cancer, or any of the diseases which specifically affect males (haemophilia, for instance). Gee... how dare they. They must be sickos. They must just love making men feel powerless by handling their delicate parts and forcing them to come in for checkups.

How about this: doctors do what they're good at. Isn't that a radical concept? If women are truly 'better' at OB/GYN, then it'll show--the field will be gradually and painlessly taken over by women, because the hospitals will always hire the best OB/GYNs. And if not, well, the patients will still get the cream of the crop--the people who can save their lives if necessary. If the pregnancy is normal and an OB/GYN is not required, the patients can choose a male or female midwife instead--again, based on ability or whatever criteria they desire.

ETA: I forgot to mention the marginalisation of the baby's father in this thread! My DH will be there with me for the birth, and yes, he will support me and help me. BUT, it is his baby too--and if in my pain or panic I make a stupid decision which will harm the baby, I EXPECT him to veto me. That's the responsible thing to do. I don't have some kind of magical powers just because I happen to be giving birth, nor sole right to our child.


----------



## NJ*Doula (Apr 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Smokering* 
Wow... just wow. I can't believe the arrogance that goes into a statement like 'Why would men want to get into OB/GYN anyway?'. Good grief! Obstetrics is uniquely rewarding--it's about new life. Some male med students probably find it fascinating. Some probably discover they have an unexpected talent for it. Some probably realise that they don't want to go into surgery/oncology/pediatrics after all, and that they prefer OB/GYN. Some probably hear horror stories of bad OB/GYN staff and want to remedy the situation by being good OB/GYN staff. Some probably make the decision based on work/life balance, because the money and hours allow them to spend time with family. Some probably do it because there's a shortage of OB/GYNs in the area and they're encouraged to fill the gap. There are a thousand reasons! Just like women who go into OB/GYN are motivated by a thousand reasons! You think all female OB/GYNs are motivated by identical feminist, woman-serving causes?

The 'parts they don't have' argument is equally ludicrous. As has been pointed out, vets take care of creatures with entirely different physiologies. Not to mention the WOMEN doctors who help cure patients with prostate or testicular cancer, or any of the diseases which specifically affect males (haemophilia, for instance). Gee... how dare they. They must be sickos. They must just love making men feel powerless by handling their delicate parts and forcing them to come in for checkups.

How about this: doctors do what they're good at. Isn't that a radical concept? If women are truly 'better' at OB/GYN, then it'll show--the field will be gradually and painlessly taken over by women, because the hospitals will always hire the best OB/GYNs. And if not, well, the patients will still get the cream of the crop--the people who can save their lives if necessary. If the pregnancy is normal and an OB/GYN is not required, the patients can choose a male or female midwife instead--again, based on ability or whatever criteria they desire.

ETA: I forgot to mention the marginalisation of the baby's father in this thread! My DH will be there with me for the birth, and yes, he will support me and help me. BUT, it is his baby too--and if in my pain or panic I make a stupid decision which will harm the baby, I EXPECT him to veto me. That's the responsible thing to do. I don't have some kind of magical powers just because I happen to be giving birth, nor sole right to our child.









Amen to all of this!

And I'd like to add that I'm horrified by the statement (don't remember who made it) that most men want to control and subjugate women. The wrongness of that makes me feel ill. Men are human, just as women are. They have all sorts of thoughts and motivations, just as we do. There are plenty of women in the world who would love nothing more than to control and manipulate men (and children, and other women) just as there are men who would like to do the same. The majority, however, have no such dark desires. To paint a whole gender with that brush would be laughable if it weren't so repugnant.


----------



## amitymama (Nov 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GathererGirl* 







Amen to all of this!

And I'd like to add that I'm horrified by the statement (don't remember who made it) that most men want to control and subjugate women. The wrongness of that makes me feel ill. Men are human, just as women are. They have all sorts of thoughts and motivations, just as we do. There are plenty of women in the world who would love nothing more than to control and manipulate men (and children, and other women) just as there are men who would like to do the same. The majority, however, have no such dark desires. To paint a whole gender with that brush would be laughable if it weren't so repugnant.

Whew! I was beginning to think I was going mad for being the only one to think this.







:


----------



## shelleyd (Jul 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Smokering* 
ETA: I forgot to mention the marginalisation of the baby's father in this thread! My DH will be there with me for the birth, and yes, he will support me and help me. BUT, it is his baby too--and if in my pain or panic I make a stupid decision which will harm the baby, I EXPECT him to veto me. That's the responsible thing to do. I don't have some kind of magical powers just because I happen to be giving birth, nor sole right to our child.


Except that you do have "some kind of magical power because you happen to be giving birth". Your intuition and your knoweledge of your body and the intimate knowledge of your baby that you get from carrying it inside YOUR body for nine months. Father or not, nobody else has that.

Shelley


----------



## BetsyS (Nov 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *danotoyou2* 
This is such an interesting thread... I don't have time to add a lot, but wanted to comment on the male OBGYN vs. female OBGYN...

My mother, nearly 60 years old, has always preferred male gynecologists. The reason? She feels that women, when looking at her genitals, are comparing to their own and this makes her uncomfortable.
.

You know, while I don't completely agree with your mom







:, there is a part of this I agree with.

It's been my experience (mostly working with female obs; I've only ever been to one and not for childbirth) that female OB/GYNs don't compare their patients to themselves physically, but certainly in other aspects. If there is a female ob/gyn that worked until 38 weeks pregnant, she expects all her patients to do the same. If you find one that went out on bedrest at 24 weeks, then she is usually much more open to that idea for other women.

I worked with a female ob/gyn that wouldn't treat patients agressively for thrush with breastfeeding. She would swear up and down that it was "normal" for breastfeeding to feel like shards of glass for months. And, for her, it did. Cause she didn't get her thrush treated.







: Other than that quirk, she was actually a competent doctor.

But, I just find that female ob/gyns that have had some sort of pregnancy/childbirth/female issues tend to really forecast their experiences onto their patients.

Not all, but a glaring number.


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

Quote:

Except that you do have "some kind of magical power because you happen to be giving birth". Your intuition and your knoweledge of your body and the intimate knowledge of your baby that you get from carrying it inside YOUR body for nine months. Father or not, nobody else has that.
No; I don't. Intuition is not 'magical power', and frankly my DH knows exactly as much about my baby as I do. I know when it's kicking; that's all. When he says 'How's the baby?' we both know that I really have no more idea than he does. Maybe some women have a closer connection with their unborn child--maybe some men do, too! But maternal intuition is not infallible--just look at all the MDC mamas who 'just knew' that their child was a boy or girl, only to be proven wrong!

At any rate this is unrelated to the point I was making, which is that a father has a right to say what happens to his baby. If I 'maternally intuited' halfway through labour that I'd really prefer a C-section, I hope DH would ask me for a damn good reason! And if I decided I would feel more comfortable with him out of the room for the birth, I hope he'd say 'Honey, we agreed that we both wanted to be here'. Why? Because it's not MY baby; it's OUR baby. It would have been physically impossible for me to conceive this child on my own--so what gives me the right to pretend that the baby's father is irrelevant? _Yes_, I expect him to be supportive. But I do _not_ expect him to defer to my every whim as if I have some secret, arcane, goddess-like touch-me-not power. It's not about me. It's about our baby.


----------



## NJ*Doula (Apr 14, 2006)

I shall henceforth follow behind Smokering, nodding my agreement as we go.


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

Awww.


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

I just wanted to add that OB/Gyn isn't about the glory and warmth about bringing new life into the world. It's a highly surgical field - next to being a general surgeon - and it's attractiveness to people has to do with its surgical approaches.

Let's be frank: the medical model of dealing with women's healthcare is one that is misogynist and very male oriented (linear thinking).

I have a hard time ignoring what doctors (men) introduced once they turned society against midwives.


----------



## dinahx (Sep 17, 2005)

I agree, the entire OB prenatal model of care is based upon invasiveness. And I agree that I cannot ignore the continuing campaign against midwifery and a non-invasive model of care.


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

No, but I've talked with a fair share. I never said all OBs are in it for surgery - but if you look at the scope of practice of an OB/Gyn, you'll see there's a higher mode of surgery than there is of lullaby births. There's no need to be catty here - we're talking about something that is well known. Obstetricians are surgeons - they have been since the beginning with the arrival of forceps.

I'm not sure where the defensiveness comes from. It's been documented in history pretty darn well. We see the current climate of obstetrics within a technocratic model. It's not woman-centered, it's not evidence-based and it IS very surgical. (Not to mention the field of gynecology with the prevelance of hysterectomies, etc) This approach is not new - it's been around since the beginning.

Modern medicine approaches the human body in a very male-oriented way. It's very linear, very left brain, very black and white, very heroic.

I'm not anti-man. I am a feminist, which means I'm pro-woman and pro-man in very equal ways. I am opposed to the technocratic model of birth and women's health issues. This, to me, is deeply rooted in mysoginst thinking and myths about women's bodies.


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

Hmm, interesting that is what you take from it. Looking from the other side, how do you know why people become OBs? Do you really know? Have you talked to many? Because I have and it's pretty clear from their discussions that it's common knowledge that the field is appealing because of it's surgical aspect.

Anyway, I do want to keep this civil. I have had very different experiences in my discussions with OBs, GPs and CNMs. Your mileage, of course, may always vary.

The technocratic model of childbirth is misogynist. Without a doubt. Whether it's a male provider or female provider, the approach, the education and the beliefs are all similar. There are some variances, of course, but what we have seen in modern childbirth in the last 100 years points to something very different than woman-centered.

There are some amazing accounts of medical residency, the field of obstetrics, the history of midwifery and the takeover by doctors, and the struggles that current OBs deal with. Some books on this I'd recommend:

From Doctor to Healer: The Transformative Journey by Robbie Davis-Floyd
Childbirth and Authoratative Knowledge by Robbie Davis-Floyd
Born in the USA by Marsden Wagner
Pursuing the Birth Machine by Marsden Wagner
Birth by Tina Cassidy
Pushed by Jennifer Block
Witches, Midwives and Nurses by Barbara Ehrenreich
The Making of Man-Midwifery by Adrian Wilson


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

No, I don't know many OBs. But then, I wasn't the one claiming that all OBs take the job for a single specific reason.

Whether or not the techocratic model of childbirth is misogynistic is irrelevant, when discussing whether or not *a* male OB/GYN should be present at a birth. Just because someone is male does not mean he is The System.


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

I never said that because someone is a male he is The System. I was not talking about men vs women here, I'm discussing the technocratic model of birth - and that includes female and male providers.

I'm a little concerned that this is more of a tit for tat thing here...rather than the discussion as a whole. ? Perhaps I'm missing the point of this thread?


----------



## rajahkat (Oct 1, 2003)

I like to think men become OB's because at heart they are really big softies who prefer to specialize in a field that is predominantly healthy vibrant women and cute babies instead of sick and dying people.

That doesn't mean I want one around me unless I'm in desperate need of surgery.....and in that case, I would hope he went into obstetrics because he was fascinated by surgery, wanted to prove that he could be the best surgeon in the world, and thrives everytime he gets called in to do a c-section!


----------



## jauncourt (Mar 15, 2007)

My experience with a male OB was this:

He was VISBILY delighted to hear me say these things:
"I want a labor without pain medications of any kind, if that is possible."
"I want to breastfeed my child as long as I can, and start right away."
"I want to have as few interventions as possible in my labor."

He supported my choice to have my son room-in with me, and supported the lack of pain meds in my labor. He did not episiotomy me. He is a great doctor, with an excellent manner, and I was sorry to see him move.

However, this OB had moved to his wife's rural, not especially lucrative to practice in, hometown to make sure that they were available to her parents, so that they were not alone in their old age. Once her mom passed on, and her family had all moved away, they moved their extended family back to his family's home area so her dad would have a larger extended family network to depend on. Thus I think his practice method simply reflects his overall attitudes to life, family, and people in general.

I think if we look at all the excellent practitioners of any sort of medicine, we will find that those practitioners who are compassionate and loving in all aspects of their lives are the same ones.

My two pennies, and of course YMMV









Maura


----------



## doctorjen (May 29, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Smokering* 
No, I don't know many OBs. But then, I wasn't the one claiming that all OBs take the job for a single specific reason.

Whether or not the techocratic model of childbirth is misogynistic is irrelevant, when discussing whether or not *a* male OB/GYN should be present at a birth. Just because someone is male does not mean he is The System.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *pamamidwife* 
I never said that because someone is a male he is The System. I was not talking about men vs women here, I'm discussing the technocratic model of birth - and that includes female and male providers.

I'm a little concerned that this is more of a tit for tat thing here...rather than the discussion as a whole. ? Perhaps I'm missing the point of this thread?


Quote:


Originally Posted by *pamamidwife* 
I just wanted to add that OB/Gyn isn't about the glory and warmth about bringing new life into the world. It's a highly surgical field - next to being a general surgeon - and it's attractiveness to people has to do with its surgical approaches.

Let's be frank: the medical model of dealing with women's healthcare is one that is misogynist and very male oriented (linear thinking).

I have a hard time ignoring what doctors (men) introduced once they turned society against midwives.

Speaking from a similar experience of talking with many OBs, and many students choosing their career fields, the surgical aspect of OB is definitely a big draw for many folks. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever met someone who went into OB from a point of view of wanting to support feminism and woman-centered care. I know that doesn't mean such folks don't exist, but I've never met one. I personally entered medical school to go into OB, but once I did my OB rotation and found out how heavily surgical the field is, and how the training is so heavily focused on surgery, I changed my mind and became a family doctor. Almost every OB I've ever met chose the field because they enjoyed surgery and wanted to be in a mostly happy field with a lot of positive outcomes. I've met very few who have even ever attended a physiologically normal birth that wasn't a precip, let alone who strive to promote them.

The modern technical model of birth arises out of long push to move birth out of the sphere of women's work, in the home, guided by "soft" things like intuition, tradition, and support. The study of this history is absolutely fascinating and can help you realize how the current model of birth arose. This history is full of misogynism. While no one can say for sure what any one person's individual motives might be, one has only to work in the modern medical birth world a very short time to see how the system itself is fairly anti-woman. As someone who went into birth work from a feminist point of view, my first week of OB almost killed me, and I almost quit altogether. I realized quite quickly that there was no way I could survive the training needed to be an OB, even with my best intentions as my driving force. I could not in good conscious treat even one woman as just someone to learn on, could not be happy about the chance to practice my surgical skills because someone needed a cesarean birth, could not look at a 4th degree episiotomy extension with joy at the chance to learn. Granted my experience is limited to the 4 different hospitals I had OB training experience in, but the training atmosphere was more or less the same in all of them. Surgeons like to operate. Surgeons in training need to operate to learn. Surgery wasn't what turned me on, birth was - especially birth where I got to be with woman, providing support and encouragement and seeing the amazing strength of a woman who stretches her abilities to bring forth a new life.

To Pam's list, I'd add: The Woman in the Body by Emily Martin, a great look at how women's bodies came to be medicalized and birth technicalized.

While I don't think men need to be banned from birth work (think of Michel Odent!), I do think if the model shifted to be more pro-woman, with women in power, and women's unique bodies and experiences venerated, there would be few men interested in participating. If the men want to stay OB surgeons, I'm fine with that - as long as surgeons aren't the main care providers of healthy women. If men want to enter into the female-dominated sphere of birth and provided woman-centered and empowered care, I'm fine with that, too. I think such men would be few and far between.


----------



## AstridS (Mar 9, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *doctorjen* 
Speaking from a similar experience of talking with many OBs, and many students choosing their career fields, the surgical aspect of OB is definitely a big draw for many folks. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever met someone who went into OB from a point of view of wanting to support feminism and woman-centered care. I know that doesn't mean such folks don't exist, but I've never met one. I personally entered medical school to go into OB, but once I did my OB rotation and found out how heavily surgical the field is, and how the training is so heavily focused on surgery, I changed my mind and became a family doctor. Almost every OB I've ever met chose the field because they enjoyed surgery and wanted to be in a mostly happy field with a lot of positive outcomes. I've met very few who have even ever attended a physiologically normal birth that wasn't a precip, let alone who strive to promote them.

The modern technical model of birth arises out of long push to move birth out of the sphere of women's work, in the home, guided by "soft" things like intuition, tradition, and support. The study of this history is absolutely fascinating and can help you realize how the current model of birth arose. This history is full of misogynism. While no one can say for sure what any one person's individual motives might be, one has only to work in the modern medical birth world a very short time to see how the system itself is fairly anti-woman. As someone who went into birth work from a feminist point of view, my first week of OB almost killed me, and I almost quit altogether. I realized quite quickly that there was no way I could survive the training needed to be an OB, even with my best intentions as my driving force. I could not in good conscious treat even one woman as just someone to learn on, could not be happy about the chance to practice my surgical skills because someone needed a cesarean birth, could not look at a 4th degree episiotomy extension with joy at the chance to learn. Granted my experience is limited to the 4 different hospitals I had OB training experience in, but the training atmosphere was more or less the same in all of them. Surgeons like to operate. Surgeons in training need to operate to learn. Surgery wasn't what turned me on, birth was - especially birth where I got to be with woman, providing support and encouragement and seeing the amazing strength of a woman who stretches her abilities to bring forth a new life.

To Pam's list, I'd add: The Woman in the Body by Emily Martin, a great look at how women's bodies came to be medicalized and birth technicalized.

While I don't think men need to be banned from birth work (think of Michel Odent!), I do think if the model shifted to be more pro-woman, with women in power, and women's unique bodies and experiences venerated, there would be few men interested in participating. If the men want to stay OB surgeons, I'm fine with that - as long as surgeons aren't the main care providers of healthy women. If men want to enter into the female-dominated sphere of birth and provided woman-centered and empowered care, I'm fine with that, too. I think such men would be few and far between.









:


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Hi! I have removed several posts that were in violation of the UA. Please remember that the MDC User Agreement requires that we:

Quote:

*Do not post in a disrespectful, defamatory, adversarial, baiting, harassing, offensive, insultingly sarcastic or otherwise improper manner, toward a member or other individual, including casting of suspicion upon a person, invasion of privacy, humiliation, demeaning criticism, name-calling, personal attack, or in any way which violates the law.*
and

Quote:

*Do not post to a thread to take direct issue with a member. If you feel a member has posted or behaved inappropriately in a discussion, communicate directly with the member, moderator or administrator privately and refrain from potentially defaming discussion in a thread.*
and

Quote:

*Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email or private message. We will make every effort to remove objectionable messages within a reasonable time frame, if we determine removal is necessary. If you feel another member is behaving in a manner that is in violation of these rules, do not take matters into your own hands. Let us try to resolve the situation. Simply alert the moderator of the forum*

Quote:

*MDC serves an online community of parents, families, and parent, child and family advocates considering, learning, practicing, and advocating attachment parenting and natural family living. Our discussions concern the real world of mothering and are first and foremost, for support, information, and community. Mothering invites you to read and participate in the discussions. In doing so we ask that you agree to respect and uphold the integrity of this community. Through your direct or indirect participation here you agree to make a personal effort to maintain a comfortable and respectful atmosphere for our guests and members.*
Please utilize the red, black and white triangular button in the lower left-hand side of each post if there are any posts that are objectionable, rather than posting to the thread itself.

Any questions or concerns, please PM me or Arwyn. Thanks so much


----------



## mamabearing (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BetsyS* 
You know, while I don't completely agree with your mom







:, there is a part of this I agree with.

It's been my experience (mostly working with female obs; I've only ever been to one and not for childbirth) that female OB/GYNs don't compare their patients to themselves physically, but certainly in other aspects. If there is a female ob/gyn that worked until 38 weeks pregnant, she expects all her patients to do the same. If you find one that went out on bedrest at 24 weeks, then she is usually much more open to that idea for other women.

I worked with a female ob/gyn that wouldn't treat patients agressively for thrush with breastfeeding. She would swear up and down that it was "normal" for breastfeeding to feel like shards of glass for months. And, for her, it did. Cause she didn't get her thrush treated.







: Other than that quirk, she was actually a competent doctor.

But, I just find that female ob/gyns that have had some sort of pregnancy/childbirth/female issues tend to really forecast their experiences onto their patients.

Not all, but a glaring number.

I have made similar observations. Males don't tend to get invested in you doing it the way they did or their wives did the way I notice some women can. Not that there are not wonderful female OBs and midwives. But I have given birth with male OBs and female and male CNMs...and found them all caring and compassionate.


----------



## Mama Poot (Jun 12, 2006)

I agree that the only male who has a place in the birth is the father, and even the father's role is limited to as much support or help as the mother requests. I think its disgusting that men comprise the overwhelming majority of women's health practitioners in this country. DISGUSTING. They have no place in it, and I wish things would go back to when everyone understood that.


----------



## ktbug (Jul 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *doctorjen* 
I do think if the model shifted to be more pro-woman, with women in power, and women's unique bodies and experiences venerated, there would be few men interested in participating. If the men want to stay OB surgeons, I'm fine with that - as long as surgeons aren't the main care providers of healthy women. If men want to enter into the female-dominated sphere of birth and provided woman-centered and empowered care, I'm fine with that, too. I think such men would be few and far between.

Yes. That's put much more nicely than "I'm a raging man-hater and I don't want those jerks anywhere near my vagina when I'm trying to push a baby out of it". That's why she's the doctor, folks!









Less clinically, I also feel:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama Poot*
... the only male who has a place in the birth is the father, and even the father's role is limited to as much support or help as the mother requests. I think its disgusting that men comprise the overwhelming majority of women's health practitioners in this country. DISGUSTING. They have no place in it, and I wish things would go back to when everyone understood that.

In the present model of care (technocratic, as I have come to understand), it really IS disgusting. Modern technocratic birth is, in and of itself, anti-feminist, and for that reason, the people who practice within that system are anti-feminist by default. But more so the men, because they're men. I don't care if that isn't fair, it's just the way I feel.


----------



## Robinna (Aug 11, 2003)

Wow. I just read this entire thread, minus the posts that got removed. Great discussion.

I started to add a response and then deleted because i really don't think I have much to add to what has been said. I would never choose a male practitioner unless he had skills (eg breech delivery) that I couldn't find in a woman. My soul has always rebelled against the idea of a male other than my partner touching me so intimately. Quite frankly I find a female doing a vaginal exam nearly as repugnant and as such, I don't do annual exams - I'm just not motivated in any way to do such a thing.

I'm with Jen as usual about men involved in birth or gyn in general - if they're prepared to offer the kind of care that women actually need, then by all means. But I too suspect that far fewer men would be interested in practicing within a woman-centric model.

As to decisions in birthing - my partner, too, is a feminist - even more than I am. He defers to me in birthing decisions, since it is not just the OUR baby but MY body. He is interested, involved, and has opinions, but respects that I am the one doing the work and that I am the one who will directly experience the long-term physical ramifications of the birth, and as such, final decisions about where and how to birth, are mine. Since my decisions are generally firmly based on research facts, there has never been a conflict on this point.


----------



## ananas (Jun 6, 2006)

Subbing to read later.


----------



## mamabadger (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *doctorjen* 
While I don't think men need to be banned from birth work (think of Michel Odent!)...

Michel Odent is an excellent example of a man who understood childbirth. That is why he made the following statements:

Quote:

"It is not mere coincidence that in all traditional societies, women in labor are assisted not by men, but by other women who have had children themselves...."

Quote:

"It is very important that midwives be women... Labor, birth and breastfeeding are in part sexual events, and the gender of those people present must be taken into account. The contact between the birth attendant and the woman in labor can be exceedingly intimate and intense. A woman in labor is in an especially vulnerable physical and emotional state, apt to become dependent on her birth attendant, at least for a while. The sexual overtones that might accompany such contact with a male attendant could hamper the woman in labor in acting as openly and spontaneously as whe would like, or afterwards might even make her feel ashamed of what she has revealed about herself"
I should also point out that Odent eventually concluded that men, and doctors in general, needed to get out of obstetrics as much as possible, and followed his own advice by leaving the field himself.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jauncourt* 
My experience with a male OB was this:

He was VISBILY delighted to hear me say these things:
"I want a labor without pain medications of any kind, if that is possible."
"I want to breastfeed my child as long as I can, and start right away."
"I want to have as few interventions as possible in my labor."

He supported my choice to have my son room-in with me, and supported the lack of pain meds in my labor. He did not episiotomy me. He is a great doctor, with an excellent manner, and I was sorry to see him move.

However, this OB had moved to his wife's rural, not especially lucrative to practice in, hometown to make sure that they were available to her parents, so that they were not alone in their old age. Once her mom passed on, and her family had all moved away, they moved their extended family back to his family's home area so her dad would have a larger extended family network to depend on. Thus I think his practice method simply reflects his overall attitudes to life, family, and people in general.

*I think if we look at all the excellent practitioners of any sort of medicine, we will find that those practitioners who are compassionate and loving in all aspects of their lives are the same ones.*

My two pennies, and of course YMMV









Maura

I think that this is the main thing that makes a good ob/midwife/fp. If the person is not compassionate in his/her life, then they most likely won't be compassionate and understanding to a woman in labor. I love my male ob/gyn, and switched to him after realizing he was a much nicer person than my female midwife. He is one of the kindest most understanding people I know.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
I agree that OBs, including male OBs, are not evil or anti-woman, but the obstetric system certainly is. It was established by an all-male medical system at a time when women were regarded as inferior and contemptible, and the entire system is based on that attitude. It has changed somewhat over the years, but not nearly enough.

I, also, don't understand why men go into gynecology. Equating it with specializing in cardiac medicine or podiatry is just ignoring the obvious. Having a strange man put his fingers up your vagina or feel your breasts involves more issues than I can name - modesty issues, power issues, you name it. We have agreed to just pretend there is nothing to it, but that just isn't the case. *I think there is something inherently demeaning in a woman being asked to lie down, put her legs in stirrups, and let some man rummage* *around in there.* I am also suspicious of the tendency to advise pelvic exams far more frequently than preventive health care warrants. I'm not saying OB/GYNs are perverts, just that they are acting on the assumption that female organs are suspect and more prone to failure than usual, and need to be constantly monitored.

When women first began going to male doctors for intimate exams and childbirth, it was agreed that the process would offend their modesty, but since only men could be doctors in those days, women were encouraged to suppress those feelings in order to get the health care they needed. Maybe that was a valid point; but today, women are able to become doctors. Women patients no longer have to endure this situation. So _why are men still becoming gynecologists?_

Why isn't it demeaning to have some strange woman rummage around down there?


----------



## mamabadger (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *felix23* 
Why isn't it demeaning to have some strange woman rummage around down there?

It is, and should be avoided except in cases of absolute medical necessity. However, I still feel that having it done by a male gynecologist takes things to another level. To me, it seems so obvious that I can't understand why I need to explain it. If you are naked in a changing room and another woman walks in, it can be embarrassing; but not at all the same thing as if a strange man walks in. People can claim "It wouldn't bother me, because I'm comfortable with my body," but I just plain don't believe them.
Given all the feelings associated with nudity, genital contact, male and female relations and the power issues associated with them, having to strip and spread your legs for a fully dressed man is problematic, and not in the best interests of women taking control of their bodies and their health care.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
It is, and should be avoided except in cases of absolute medical necessity. However, I still feel that having it done by a male gynecologist takes things to another level. To me, it seems so obvious that I can't understand why I need to explain it. If you are naked in a changing room and another woman walks in, it can be embarrassing; but not at all the same thing as if a strange man walks in. People can claim "It wouldn't bother me, because I'm comfortable with my body," but I just plain don't believe them.
Given all the feelings associated with nudity, genital contact, male and female relations and the power issues associated with them, having to strip and spread your legs for a fully dressed man is problematic, and not in the best interests of women taking control of their bodies and their health care.

You may not believe me, but it really doesn't bother me at all. I have no problems at all seeing a male ob/gyn. He is a professional doing what I am paying him to do, nothing weird about it at all. And just because I see a male dr doesn't mean that I'm not in control of my body or health care.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
To me, it seems so obvious that I can't understand why I need to explain it. If you are naked in a changing room and another woman walks in, it can be embarrassing; but not at all the same thing as if a strange man walks in. People can claim "It wouldn't bother me, because I'm comfortable with my body," but I just plain don't believe them.

I would be extremely uncomfortable if I were in a changing room and a strange man walked in. However, that has as much to do with the fact that I'd be wondering the what the h**l he was doing there in the first place, yk? Hard to believe he'd be there accidentally, or with benign intent. However, it wouldn't happen to me, because I don't use public changing rooms - ever. I never have, and I doubt I ever will. Why? I don't want a bunch of strangers around me when I'm naked - male or female makes no difference.

In any case, this is a somewhat flawed comparison, as the circumstances aren't the same.

Quote:

Given all the feelings associated with nudity, genital contact, male and female relations and the power issues associated with them, having to strip and spread your legs for a fully dressed man is problematic...
I find having to strip and "spread my legs" for a fully dressed _anybody_ to be problematic in terms of power dynamics and all the rest of it. I find a pap to be about as unsexual as anything can get, so the male/female part of it doesn't really register to me. Within the medical profession, the two least threatening figures I've ever dealt with were both men. The worst was also a man - and the three runners-up were all women. The other men and women I've dealt with have run the gamut from caring and empathetic to cold and callous...with enough women being represented to make them balance out. Most of the worst have been women, but so have some of the best.

FWIW, other than my c-sections, the most assaulted I've ever felt has been at the hands of women...like the lactation consultant who pushed my dh out of the way, grabbed my baby and my breast and latched him...without so much as telling me who she was. I've certainly never had any men in the field treat my body with so little respect.


----------

