Category Archives: feminism

Choosing Midwives: Science Is Not Exclusively Male

Laurie and Debbie say:

1331847578602552933

One of the many ways male hierarchies keep women’s skills at bay is by associating myths with women, and facts with men, magic with women and science with men. In this context, Therese Oneill detailed and informative essay at Jezebel on the tension between doctors/men and midwives/women tension helps reveal the persistent and culturally accepted myth which associates men, science, doctors and hospital births with cleanliness, safety, and infant survival.

There was nothing wrong in wanting those who attended birthing to be clean, educated and accountable, but the doctors were going for self-interested gatekeeping. Requiring official licensing was the first step in shoving women out of the field all together. You couldn’t get licensed from just an apprenticeship, which was the norm for midwifery. Official training and state licensure cost money, an expense passed on to clients. It undermined the centuries-old purpose of the midwife as an affordable option to assist births. Instead, went the parallel argument, physicians wanted the poor to give birth in charity hospitals—where tired, apathetic attendants and untold diseases and infections awaited them. …

[The 1906 study of 500 interviewed New York midwives, described in Oneill’s article] included only one, one, “West Indian Negress.” It seems unlikely that an urban population the size of New York had so few black mothers as to warrant only one midwife. It is possible that white midwives served black mothers, but highly unlikely in an era and place where ethnocentricity was king. It is more likely that black society, North and South, experienced far less interference from campaigns intended to improve society.

Women could, of course, go to medical school to become fully licensed obstetricians. But the number was minuscule clear into the 1980s. According to the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, in the 1970s, only 9 percent of enrolled medical students in any field were women.

[Side note: Lots of factors kept women out of medical school. Debbie’s mother was admitted into medical school in the 1930s, defying quotas on both women and Jews. But her parents, who could easily afford it, refused to pay for it, reserving the money “to educate their two sons,” one of whom never went past high school. ]

But that changed, and it changed fast. According to The US National Library of Medicine, female residency in Obstetrics and Gynecology quadrupled from 1978 to the present. Women now account for 71.8 percent of OB/GYN residents….

It’s not just that there are more female obstetricians, either. Midwifery, far more sanitary and scientific than its ancient ancestor, is booming again after a near 200-year lag. The difference between the two is most salient in terms of their technical training: obstetricians have gone through medical school, are able to perform C-sections, suturing, circumcision, and are skilled in handling high-risk pregnancies. Midwives come in different flavors, but the majority are medically trained and licensed in all things related to normal pregnancy and birth.

None of this is new information to people who follow this kind of history. The persistent, deep belief that doctors are better than midwives is not just about pregnancy  and birth (so much of history is about men trying to figure out how they can own children!), but about how Western science was created and defended as a male domain. Science was developed (mostly) by men, promulgated (mostly) by men, and made available (almost exclusively) to men. Thus science became male, despite the fact that there are no “insert penis here” slots in any scientific test or accomplishment we’ve ever heard of.

In the last few decades, the presence of women in the sciences has shifted substantially (though we may be losing ground). In the same period,  the perception of science as male has shifted less.

If men “own” science, then whatever women do, by definition, isn’t science. That’s how you get to Teresa Oneill’s husband’s reaction:

“Yes! A midwife!” … “Because I was thinking to myself, ‘Who are we going to get to wave burning sage over your stomach and chant to Gaia while the baby dies?’ CLAP IF YOU BELIEVE!!”

While it seems very likely that some significant percentage of early midwives worked in filthy conditions, as Oneill points out, hospitals were filthy then also. Yet, the discussion implies men=science=clean and women=ignorance/magic=dirty.  We’d bet the rent that a good history of midwifery would point out many instances where midwives figured out sanitation and disinfection issues on their own, through experience and observation.

The association of women solely with magic and myth is one way that male culture uses its own myths to denigrate and trivialize those who work outside it. Let’s hope that this one remains dead for two centuries and more, while midwives continue to use science and intuition, caring and disinfectant to combat the risks of pregnancy and birth.

Dickanatomy, Dickonomics, and Dickfuturology

Debbie says:

Even when I’m screening for good Body Impolitic fodder, I rarely find three great links on any one topic … and when I do, it’s not usually male sexual organs.

***

First, Diane Kelly at Throb reports on a genuinely new anatomical discovery.

… no one knew much about how the lymphatic vessels were arranged underneath the skin, which limited treatments for swelling and increased the risk of complications during surgery.

So in a wince-inducing imaging experiment, Yan Liu and his colleagues at the Third Military Medical University in Chongqing, China built a map of the penile lymphatic system using MRI images captured from volunteers who agreed to have a medical contrast agent injected under their foreskins.

The results, published in the Anatomical Record this week, show that lymphatic vessels in the glans and foreskin form a network across the upper surface of the penis before merging to form larger vessels that send fluid into lymph nodes embedded in the groin. The network isn’t connected to the erectile tissues in the center of the penis, suggesting that those tissues have their own independent set of lymphatic vessels.

Then, Alana Massey at Medium has some scorching things to say about “dickonomics” on dating sites (especially Tinder), and how women who have sex with men can think about choosing among possible partners.

Dick is abundant and low value. I had gotten my new motto amidst the worst break-up of my life. Shaken to my core by the degrading insults my ex had hurled at me but also mourning the permanent departure of some poetically good dick, I was spending a day mindlessly refreshing Twitter and reading up on how to spot sociopaths. I came across two tweets from Madeleine Holden, a lawyer and writer who regularly entertains the Twitter masses with her unapologetic analyses of toxic masculinity and her praise of amazing female-identified people:

1 G-bMq6iDoaXX7W2xdh61AwFor all its faults, I still find Tinder delightful. I’m now 29, and I set my upper age limit to a reasonable 37, my lower age limit to a rather scandalous 23. No one can address me without my consent, which I can withdraw with an unceremonious “Unmatch” at any time. … But I’ve found enough value on Tinder to keep going, swiping and unmatching bad profiles out of my life at the first sign of unreasonable expectations. Their corner of Tinder is a dark place, dense with hapless souls who didn’t realize that the centuries-long period of dick overvaluation is over.

***

Finally, George Dvorsky at io9 has entirely too much fun imagining “the penis of the future,” which is, among other things,

  • disease resistant (“a high-tech penis could be implanted with bio-sensors that detect specific foreign pathogens, alerting the rest of the body to their presence,”),
  • shape-shifting (“Ideally, men should be able to change the smoothness of their penis, or its surface structure. Penis 2.0 should be like an on-demand French tickler, with modifiable ridges, grooves, and bumps to enhance the sexual pleasure of the receiver.”) and
  • internet ready (“Once your dick is online you’ll be able to participate in virtual sex. … With the enhanced, Internet-ready penis, no external devices will be required. You could also use your bluetooth-enabled penis to track and transmit biometric data and other statistics to an online app. … Oh, and a connection to the Internet will also allow you to update any software that’s resident in your upgraded penis.)

You’ve heard of the “internet of things”; this is the “internet of schlongs.”  Read the whole thing, some of which is serious and all of which is entertaining.

Thanks to hitchhiker for the dickonomics link.