september mama

a while ago i posted briefly about this re: the upcoming documentary the other side of the glass. the issue at hand has to do with the way fathers are treated during conventional hospital birth, and the effect that has on them and their partners and babies.

initially, my instinct (and the filmmaker's) was that YES fathers are imperative at the births of their babies, they provide emotional support for the mother, comfort for the baby, and much-needed protection for both. in a lot of ways i think the only people who should be present at the birth are the two people who were present when the baby was made. i do not disagree with my first impressions, but i am beginning to wonder whether it is only now, when woman are forced to defend themselves alone during birth or risk being subjected to others' directives, that we need our men to stand watch for us. are men really supposed to be part of birth, evolutionarily?

my instinct says, maybe not. maybe we are doing them no favor by expecting their presence during such a confusing, powerful, woman-centered event. maybe we are doing ourselves no favor by requiring their adrenaline-laden presences in our sacred birth spaces. i wonder?

michel odent, servant of natural birth worldwide (and notably, a man himself), asks this in terms of the newly emerging recognition of a male post-natal depression epidemic:

Is the participation of the father at birth dangerous?

Around 1970, when theoreticians introduced new doctrines, they did not consider the effects of extreme emotional reactions some men may experience when their wife/partner is giving birth. To support their theories, they anticipated that participation of the father would strengthen ties between partners and that rates of divorce and separation would dramatically decrease. They assumed that the presence of the baby’s father, as a familiar person, would make the birth easier. By introducing the concept of male postnatal depression we first want to emphasize that many relevant questions were not raised at that time.

Among the questions that have not been raised properly were those about the possible influence of the participation of the father at birth on the sexual life of the couple afterwards. Through such a question we introduce the complex issue of sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is mysterious: mystery has a role to play in inducing and cultivating sexual attraction. I had opportunities in the past to talk about the birth of their baby with women who were themselves born at the end of the 19th century. They could not imagine being watched by their husband when giving birth: "and what about our sexual life afterwards?" was their most common reaction. Today I am amazed by the great number of couples who split off some years after a wonderful birth according to the modern criteria. They remain good friends but they are not sexual partners any longer. It is as if the birth of the baby had reinforced their comradeship while sexual attraction was fading away.

We must add that the theoreticians of the 1970s had not understood that in order to give birth, a woman must put to rest her neocortex and her 'fight and flight system' (i.e. maintaining a low level of adrenaline). If they had understood this, they would have been more cautious before routinely introducing in to the birthing place a male neocortex stimulated by a release of adrenaline. They would have understood that when a man loves his partner, his anxiety during birth is normal and that his adrenaline release is highly contagious.

personally i would like to think that the sex relationship between partners would not be affected by birth, but really: how could it not be? i have read anecdotal evidence about male OB students who were impotent for months after watching a birth--just imagine if it was your partner you had to watch turn inside out... there MUST be some weird subconscious guilt (at having assisted in doing that to her) and revulsion (at seeing the prized parts so unceremoniously exposed) associated with that experience. it's not insignificant, if you ask me. perhaps less important when weighed against participating in the birth of your own child, yes, but not insignificant.

from what i can gather about the next part of the other side of the glass being worked on, she is going to address the fact that during birth, men become equally as vulnerable as women, watching the impossible happen... she equates it hormonally to the moment before orgasm when one is completely open and receptive, and brings in the idea that not only do the women need protection, but the men do too! she seems to suggest that men need a backup to allow them to open in the way that they are naturally inclined to do during the birth of their babies. (doula, anyone?) which to me is an interesting sort of sideways counterpoint to odent's assessment. perhaps the supported father--with another man or doula to metaphorically watch his back during birth--would not suffer the same anxiety and stress as a man forced to bear sole burden for protecting his partner during her--and his own--most vulnerable moment. just a thought.

historically and in traditional/native cultures, birth is exclusively the domain of women. we can talk about couvade (when men exhibit physical or feigned symptoms to parallel those of their wives) but the point is that men are *almost never* normally included in the actual birth of their children. women are attended by women. maybe instinctively we know that men do not add anything or receive any benefit from the participation in birth...

though a little part of me feels strongly that i need matt to see me do this--i want him to be a part of this massively important moment in my (and our) life, and to be proud and maybe a little bit awed that i can do it, and to see her and touch her before anybody else does--i can't help but wonder about these things. and wonder if he wouldn't be more comfortable knowing he isn't forced to be at my side and watch while i'm in pain. or my body does frightening things. haha. i mean, i know of course i want him to be there during labor, hopefully in the tub with me, but i think i am going to ask him how HE feels about it, since i honestly don't know if i have. i sort of just took the attitude of "damn right you will be at my side" and maybe that wasn't fair. and maybe his stress (if he is afraid to be there but forced) will be worse than not having him in the room...

i wonder what he will do, given the option?