This article mixes the science with unnecessarily gendered language. It turns "a lying down position helps the doctor" to "men decided women should be on their backs" and "one pervert king liked watching women give birth, therefore somehow that's why".
Can't we just focus on the scientific advantages and not try to shoehorn sexism into everything?
I think it's useful to drive the point home that there is no good reason to give birth lying down. Otherwise you make it sound like "scientists say you should try this", and not "this was a stupid idea in the first place".
My issue with the article in general is that it undermines its own persuasiveness. It doesn't seem to say "giving birth sitting is better", or even "doctors wanted to have better visibility", but tries to cast it as a story of deliberate male oppression.
It's just unnecessarily divisive to try to turn this into a case of sexism, and I feel it takes away from the scientific angle of the article. Someone might very well dismiss the valid scientific findings as more about gender politics than science. It just doesn't seem to me like there's a need for the gendered slant.
I agree with you. Whenever anyone says "oh this is actually the males doing XYZ" it reduces the persuasiveness.
It reminded me, I'm in an activist parents group and the other day a mom there was arguing that when the media uses the word "parenting" in the context of our focus subject, it's really a manifestation of the patriarchy keeping women oppressed (the implication that dads don't really parent, they just help the moms). There's loonies everywhere.
Yes, but isn't the "one pervert king liked watching women give birth, therefore somehow that's why" actually correct, so that we should say something like "one pervert king liked watching women give birth and that's why people have done it this very, very silly way"?
I think you are being a bit hysterical and trying to find an issue where there’s none.
The article is just trying to find an historical explanation on why something so inefficient became norm in modern civilization, there’s no sexism here…
So you think "doctors wanted to see better and didn't think it would hurt anything" and "It's all because of a Frenchman who decided it was more convenient – for men." are equally gender-agnostic?
The claim also just doesn't make a lot of sense. So, a king or doctor decided women in France should be made to give birth on their backs a couple hundred years ago. Even if we accept that this would've been enough for a complete shift in how women give birth within France, how does that spread across the world?
I'd be interested in if these claims fit with places where "traditional" births/care systems are more common, i.e. places where births are primarily supported by the elder women of the community rather than formally educated medical professionals. Though, such places are also less likely to be reached by researchers.
The hospital my wife first gave birth at were very accommodating with her request. I think education of the individuals is a bigger issue than the hospitals (who have probably send and done all different ways.)
Hospitals are starting to bring midwives and doulas back. Of course, educating women and families about their options and pushing back on inducing labor and c sections would help as well.
If the water actually broke, inducing labor can be important to reduce the risk of infection though, since bacteria can easily get into the amniotic fluid. If the water didn’t break yet, then at least where I live they don’t induce unless you go so much over the expected birth date that there is a high risk you’ll need C-section if you wait more (in Northern Europe they generally don’t offer C-sections unless medically required).
Midwives provide most of the care for most births in hospitals in the UK AFAIK and have done so for decades (certainly where my older daughter was born).
In the U.S. at least the incentives are perverse. Probably what would actually move the needle is a test trial with results showing it's more cost and resource effective
This article mixes the science with unnecessarily gendered language. It turns "a lying down position helps the doctor" to "men decided women should be on their backs" and "one pervert king liked watching women give birth, therefore somehow that's why".
Can't we just focus on the scientific advantages and not try to shoehorn sexism into everything?
I think it's useful to drive the point home that there is no good reason to give birth lying down. Otherwise you make it sound like "scientists say you should try this", and not "this was a stupid idea in the first place".
My issue with the article in general is that it undermines its own persuasiveness. It doesn't seem to say "giving birth sitting is better", or even "doctors wanted to have better visibility", but tries to cast it as a story of deliberate male oppression.
It's just unnecessarily divisive to try to turn this into a case of sexism, and I feel it takes away from the scientific angle of the article. Someone might very well dismiss the valid scientific findings as more about gender politics than science. It just doesn't seem to me like there's a need for the gendered slant.
I agree with you. Whenever anyone says "oh this is actually the males doing XYZ" it reduces the persuasiveness.
It reminded me, I'm in an activist parents group and the other day a mom there was arguing that when the media uses the word "parenting" in the context of our focus subject, it's really a manifestation of the patriarchy keeping women oppressed (the implication that dads don't really parent, they just help the moms). There's loonies everywhere.
Yes, but isn't the "one pervert king liked watching women give birth, therefore somehow that's why" actually correct, so that we should say something like "one pervert king liked watching women give birth and that's why people have done it this very, very silly way"?
The article explicitly says that we don't know how much he influenced anything, so the mention just seems to be thrown in for the controversy:
> "The influence of the king's policy is unknown, although the behaviour of royalty must have affected the populace to some degree,"
Given that we aren't sure that the king affected anything, mentioning this feels more like editorializing than evidence.
I think you are being a bit hysterical and trying to find an issue where there’s none.
The article is just trying to find an historical explanation on why something so inefficient became norm in modern civilization, there’s no sexism here…
So you think "doctors wanted to see better and didn't think it would hurt anything" and "It's all because of a Frenchman who decided it was more convenient – for men." are equally gender-agnostic?
The claim also just doesn't make a lot of sense. So, a king or doctor decided women in France should be made to give birth on their backs a couple hundred years ago. Even if we accept that this would've been enough for a complete shift in how women give birth within France, how does that spread across the world?
I'd be interested in if these claims fit with places where "traditional" births/care systems are more common, i.e. places where births are primarily supported by the elder women of the community rather than formally educated medical professionals. Though, such places are also less likely to be reached by researchers.
This is why legacy media keep losing audience and trust.
I wonder what it would take to get hospitals to change how women give birth based on this scientific evidence.
The hospital my wife first gave birth at were very accommodating with her request. I think education of the individuals is a bigger issue than the hospitals (who have probably send and done all different ways.)
Hospitals are starting to bring midwives and doulas back. Of course, educating women and families about their options and pushing back on inducing labor and c sections would help as well.
If the water actually broke, inducing labor can be important to reduce the risk of infection though, since bacteria can easily get into the amniotic fluid. If the water didn’t break yet, then at least where I live they don’t induce unless you go so much over the expected birth date that there is a high risk you’ll need C-section if you wait more (in Northern Europe they generally don’t offer C-sections unless medically required).
Yes. Parent comment lacks context for why induced labor and c-sections are supposedly bad.
Midwives provide most of the care for most births in hospitals in the UK AFAIK and have done so for decades (certainly where my older daughter was born).
In the U.S. at least the incentives are perverse. Probably what would actually move the needle is a test trial with results showing it's more cost and resource effective
I was curious about the claim so I did a web search for "Roman depiction of birth" and this is the first result:
https://www.worldhistory.org/img/c/p/1200x627/18720.jpg
The mother appears to be sedentary, rather than supine. I doubt I would have noticed that detail had I not read the article.
Might one suggest the Blonsky device https://allthatsinteresting.com/blonsky-device (ianad)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFNmwFpyB3E&t=7s