Mia Freedman posted a follow up of sorts to her horrendous Birthzilla article. The follow-up was an improvement, and addressed how her grief is intertwined with her viewpoint. It also seemed to shift the focus to freebirthers, and women who have had their pregnancy classified high risk but refused medical intervention. It was still obviously flawed but definitely an improvement.
However her comments like the one I have put below highlight my ongoing concern (also quite funny that that my tabs include google searches for 'i am mr darcy onesie' and 'taking screenshot'):
I just feel like banging my head against the wall, how is a women taking control and choice in birth -and, to be perfectly clear -over her own body- classified as some sort of wackadoodle quest for a 'birth experience'? Women who choose non-interventionist births usually do so because they understand the risks associated with interventions. Freebirthing is extremely rare. Again the whole thing is inferring a false binarism, natural vs medical, bad vs good which is both unhelpful and ignorant.
And. Then. Freedman. Posted. This.
I just can't even. The (simplified) logic seems to be as follows - women cannot even have a sip of wine or a slurp of raw egg during pregnancy but once in labour they can be pumped full of narcotics and it will not affect the foetus. Bitch please.
How is the choice of a woman to not use pain relief during an induction evidence of a quest for 'birthing experience' which places the foetus at risk? Miranda Kerr received medical care during her pregnancy, and she definitely did not free-birth. I thought the 'birthzilla' label was for women who judged the way other women gave birth - pot, meet kettle. So women who had medical interventionist births can judge women who did not, but the latter cannot question the former. What the feckles.
As I have stated before, the birthing woman should know well before the birthing process of the risks involved in birthing interventions including pain relief. Labour can and should be an informed process, even though as people sneer it does not always go to plan, well it does not always go to shit either. In the end, the labouring woman can choose pain relief -even if she knows her foetus might be affected - because she needs it. I believe that most women are capable of making rational choices regarding their health. Why doesn't Freedman? Why does she feel her grief legitimates her scorn?
Furthermore, as a critical postmodernist and a WANKER, I dislike the use of the term 'natural' as it is usually used in a dimorphic sense - because what is natural (or biological) is also socially constructed (and cultural). It is perfectly natural to bleed to death. Sexism is natural. The urge to throw the baby out the window is natural. Or is it?
Natural and scientific knowledge are interconnected and with all experiences, including the birth, at times people have to sit with uncertainty and cannot control the outcome. This does not mean that people should not critically analyse the information they receive. This does not mean they should blindly accept what doctors, midwives, naturopaths, doulas, their mothers and friends have to say on the subject, but neither does it mean that all discussion should be shut down. This does not mean that the range of experiences in birth cannot be discussed because it is boring, shitful women's business and everyone used to die 100 years ago so shut up women why don't you just SHUT UP!
Freedman's messages are inconsistent, and they are bullshit. And I am going to hit her where it hurts: I don't think Caitlin Moran would approve*.
*I haven't finished her book though, maybe this shit is drawn from Moran. Only time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment