Live data from Hacker News

Women were never meant to give birth on their backs

bbc.com

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: Women were never meant to give birth on their backs

#31
Maybe this is a UK problem? Or the author just doesn't have kids? (and has no experience?)

German hospital beds for giving birth are at a 45 degree angle, which to me looked like a good compromise between "the mother can safely take a nap when she is tired" and "gravity will help you". Also, they have these thingys to put your legs up, so the overall posture is pretty close to squatting. (But with a back rest to prevent you from falling over if you're sleepy.) And modern German hospitals also have a bathtub with handrails to hang from above. And they have chairs with a hole in them. There's like a lot of options to choose from. But the nurses said that, statistically, most women choose the 45-degree-bed anyway. My guess would be because it looks the most comfortable.

Re: Women were never meant to give birth on their backs

#32
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wel…

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 t…

I can imagine these two inverse outrages being deployed almost simultaneously:

* "When you call that parenting, you give unearned credit to men who aren't contributing, call it mothering."

* "When you call that mothering, you're letting men escape their duty to contribute, call it parenting."

Some sort of... prescriptive versus descriptive paradox, I bet it can be found in other contexts too.

Re: Women were never meant to give birth on their backs

#33
post #13

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?

90% of the article is about the scientific advantages. You've chosen to fixate on the "sexism" part which is, as other commenters pointed out, mainly there to explain why things are done this way today at all. I don't think it's the article that's the problem.

Re: Women were never meant to give birth on their backs

#34
post #13

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?

90% of the article is about the scientific advantages. You've chosen to fixate on the "sexism" part which is, as other commenters pointed out, mainly there to explain why things are done this way today at all. I don't think it's the article that's the problem.

No you're right, the subtitle that says "It's all because of a Frenchman who decided it was more convenient – for men" was definitely me reading between the lines, I can't believe I even attributed a gendered slant.

Re: Women were never meant to give birth on their backs

#35
post #13

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?

> 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".

Looking more into the history of it, I find the "gendered language" to instead be important factual context. It was also not the author who wrote about the king or other "gendered language" things but instead quotes from a birth center founder and a uni professor.

Also, in the article it says "They can thank a French man named François Mauriceau". The King was a possible influence but not "one pervert king liked watching women give birth, therefore somehow that's why". The article says nothing about "a lying down position helps the doctor".

Mauriceau, who wrote a book "that helped establish obstetrics as science"[0], thought of pregnancy as illness, and that it would be "more convenient for the male physician attending". This is an important tidbit, as the article continues, "(there was already a movement emerging to dispense of midwives and instead have male surgeons present at births)."

The only problem with the "gendered language" is not explaining it further, and probably where the immediate jump to thinking it's "sexism" comes from.

At that time "man-midwives", or people with medical education and the same educational requirements as a surgeon, decided "midwifery" was a great side hustle and created a movement to push traditional midwives out of the birthing process by saying the job required a medical degree, that only men could get. Since men had no idea what the natural process for child birth was, unlike midwives who probably went through it themselves, they decided that having a woman lying down was less work for the people attending. This happened specifically because they were male. The females were pushed out of the birthing process at this time. It went against everything that women had for millennia been doing. It's absolutely important to point that out when trying to give background on why -- all of a sudden -- this natural process was perverted. I don't know how else they could put it other than, it was more convenient (and profitable) for men at the time. And propagated because one guy, who thought of it as an illness, decided he knew better and other doctors decided to listen to him.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/François_Mauriceau

Re: Women were never meant to give birth on their backs

#36
post #13

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?

This is why legacy media keep losing audience and trust.

No, that is because they sanewash trump and republicans constantly.

Re: Women were never meant to give birth on their backs

#37

> meant We're not meant to do anything. It's not like we were consciously designed with a purpose in mind. Do whatever you want.

I have a first responder friend who helped a guy who wanted to have sex with his cousin, but she wouldn’t unless he got a circumcision, so he chopped his dick off. I personally think he was not using it the way it was meant to be used at two distinct levels:

- you shouldn’t have sex with relatives

- you shouldn’t chop your dick off

The emergency room doctors sewed it back on. Not sure what to think about that.

Re: Women were never meant to give birth on their backs

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They already tried pushing back against c-sections, turns out giving overly opinionated options to women that discourages things that are medically beneficial in a large portion of cases is not helpful and caused a lot of unnecessary suffering and some deaths, now that policy is thankfully long gone, though the opinionated attitude it generated in some continues on sadly. my wife had a particularly large first baby,…

Dr. Atul Gawande† reported 20 years ago how obstetricians standardized on c-sections because the suppposedly-better alternative, forceps, (i) was very difficult to teach and supervise, and (ii) used incorrectly, could result in horrible injuries to both baby and mother:

The question facing obstetrics was this: Is medicine a craft or an industry?

If medicine is a craft, then you focus on teaching obstetricians to acquire a set of artisanal skills—the Woods corkscrew maneuver for the baby with a shoulder stuck, the Lovset maneuver for the breech baby, the feel of a forceps for a baby whose head is too big.

You do research to find new techniques.

You accept that things will not always work out in everyone’s hands.

But if medicine is an industry, responsible for the safest possible delivery of millions of babies each year, then the focus shifts.

You seek reliability.

You begin to wonder whether forty-two thousand obstetricians in the U.S. could really master all these techniques.

You notice the steady reports of terrible forceps injuries to babies and mothers, despite the training that clinicians have received.

After Apgar, obstetricians decided that they needed a simpler, more predictable way to intervene when a laboring mother ran into trouble.

They found it in the Cesarean section. [0]

(Formatting edited.)

† Surgeon, Rhodes scholar, MacArthur Foundation "genius grant" recipient, professor at Harvard Medical School, author of The Checklist Manifesto among many other things.

[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/10/09/the-score

Re: Women were never meant to give birth on their backs

#39
post #13

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?

> 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". Looking more into the history of it, I find the "gendered language" to instead be important factual context. It was also not the author who wrote about the king or o…

> The article says nothing about "a lying down position helps the doctor".

> Mauriceau, who wrote a book "that helped establish obstetrics as science"[0], thought of pregnancy as illness, and that it would be "more convenient for the male physician attending".

You contradict yourself in the very next sentence.

Re: Women were never meant to give birth on their backs

#40
As a woman it will be neat/cute to watch YC men discuss this one. If anyone is really curious how this happened in American (and spread) I highly recommend the book “Born in the USA” by Marsden Wagner.

TL;DR men saw money/opportunity in stealing women’s confidence in their natural and intuitive ability to give birth, built up tools and laws around it, and now we are stuck with a high caesarean AND fatality rate even despite this “progress.”

I went to school to be a hospital midwife until I discovered what a sad racket it is. No wonder we also have high rates of postpartum depression.

Post reply on HN