ok, so i decided to take a look and make sure there are no risks to the webster technique for turning breech babies, now that i have had two chiropractic adjustments which included it...

and i'm kind of disturbed at what i found. not that there are any risks or dangers to speak of, but rather that chiropractors are talking crap about it and saying what a quack method it is. i've only seen one highly-questionable study referenced over and over again. and if the dude talking about the certification process isn't lying, that's just... *splutter*

google it, if you care, but don't hit enter--watch what options for auto-fill come up and pick one of the negative ones (because there will be negative ones). there's enough out there to make anyone skeptical.

so whatever. i'm going to the chiro anyway for my weird leg/butt-twinges and tight shoulders, and it can't possibly hurt anything for him to massage that spot on my abdomen (he always makes sure the baby isn't in the way) for 15 seconds. but i feel really annoyed that the APA, my midwife, and millions of other people buy into these magical techniques without looking into them--just like i did! gullible, much? i guess pregnant women are just SO DESPERATE to turn their babies that they will try anything. *sigh* i will, if it comes down to it.

next stop: handstands in the pool (thank you, karen)...

i Hate politics. i understand the arguments for why it's important to be into them, and to care, but i just cannot bring myself to believe in anyone who actively seeks power. they are ALL liars, period--and i won't support a system that acknowledges and accepts such a thing. nevermind the whole two-party problem... "lesser of two evils?" no thanks. anyway, i'm just saying this is not my usual genre of interest, but something caught my ear recently.

here in balmy, elderly, dumbass florida our governor did a really logical thing and now everyone hates him. there was a bill that would require women who want or need abortions to have ultrasounds first, and to pay for them out-of-pocket... and he vetoed it. (this is actually the second good veto he's spit out in the last few months; the other was about teachers' pay and tenure and was totally absurd.)

the idea is--and this has been stated publicly and officially--that women who want abortions should be forced to accept that there is a "baby" in there, and to really think about whether or not they want to go through with it. and because the state won't pay for abortion, they won't pay for the ultrasound for these pro-choice women, either. so... a woman having to make an incredibly difficult decision (maybe she has no choice, maybe she was raped, maybe she has a disease) now has to endure the fetus being thrust literally into her face so it can hurt worse. and she has to deal with the added cost of an ultrasound (normally about $150) on top of the already expensive (normally about $400) abortion itself. what the motherfucking fuck? judgmental assholes riding their high-horses trying to make life worse for those who are probably already having a hard time in one way or another, to choose abortions. even if the pregnancy itself is the only hardship in her life, that's bad enough! (and by the way, a first trimester ultrasound doesn't show much of a "baby" anyway, so it's apparent they are just doing it to inflict emotional trauma on these women.) there is even an organization (operation outcry, or something) composed of women who have had and regret abortions who support this thing! i feel for them personally, but i don't understand how they could support something this disgusting. they had a choice.

this bill pissed me off so much i can't even say it clearly. so, props to mr. crist for putting the smack down. he says he vetoed it because of the crap about forcing women to pay for something they don't want to do... of course now he is being derogatorily labeled 'pro-choice,' despite his decision seeming to be totally rational and unmotivated by political or personal agenda.

i really cannot abide by people forcing their views on others. don't even get me started on the gay marriage thing..!

sarah called me last night to inform me that i have a different type of asymptomatic UTI after the antibiotics and my pee test last week. seriously?!

at least this time we are treating it herbally (azo cranberry pills, garlic pills+raw garlic, LOTS of water) because it's a small colonization, but i'm really confused and a little frustrated over it anyway. i know perfectly well how to prevent UTIs and i am always careful, because i have had a few in the past and they totally suck; so i don't understand what is going on. but all i can do now is try to knock it out myself.

i am 21 weeks now, mister is kicking all the time and i'm ready to get moving on his part of the bedroom! i started knitting a mobile for him, like rowan's little birds (below), only different. i'm doing his with mushrooms, a snail, a caterpillar, and a dragonfly in earth tones. i was thinking last night how funny it is that i made an air (birds) mobile for the earth baby and now i'm making an earth (bugs) mobile for the air baby... ?? oh well. it should be really cute when it's done.

i think i have a boy name i really like too, but i don't want to share yet. i'm afraid it's way too popular but *whine* i really like it!! i'm sticking to my guns about the criteria needing to fit within: celtic/nordic, nature-related, and uncommon but not too hippie. no biblical names and nothing from further east than germany. i haven't heard a peep from matt but i suspect he has been thinking hard, too.

i am glad that i did all the research on circumcision when i did, because now i don't even have to think about it for the little boy... that conversation was already had, thankfully. there is nothing anyone could say to convince me that neonatal circumcision is a good thing.

uh oh, baby is calling...

...that the midwives of gainesville will not stand up for themselves and ask more doctors to back them up than just ONE. i have been seriously considering writing an open letter to the OBGYNs in this area to see what happens... there is a lot of drama and anxiety keeping the midwives from doing it themselves, if i understand the situation correctly.

anyway:

all because one hospital--the only one with the common sense to back midwives--closed.

it's not that there is anything wrong with birth going underground, except that it is a normal human function which we have been doing FOREVER, it's just so fucking pathetic that the medical industry can just bully their way into getting anything they want from the legislature. as i commented on my favorite news site (where i found the article),

"there are so many reasons this is f*cked up.

but hey, at least the powers that be haven’t made it illegal to actually BIRTH a baby in a car, in your home, or wherever it ‘accidentally’ happens… it’s just illegal for a trained professional to attend you and attempt to ensure your safety. as long as you are on your own* as a poor, helpless, laboring woman it’s still legal.

for now.

…as if we haven’t been giving birth sans doctors for millions of years. *sigh*

*(i have heard of husbands/family members being sued for illegally practicing medicine when they attempted to assist their otherwise unattended laboring relative.)"

how long until florida makes midwifery totally illegal, again? it happened in the 90s, and midwifery lobbyists are constantly fighting the ACOG, among other groups, to keep it from happening all over again.

i don't really know what to say about this, it is so bafflingly appalling and just WRONG... who the f*ck are these people making these laws? do they have primate brains or are they sea slugs in human form?

oh sure, people have rights in america. it's just that pregnant women aren't people... but their fetuses are.

* * *

(full text from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynn-m-paltrow/caution-pregnancy-may-be-_b_483131.html?ref=fb)

Caution: Pregnancy May Be Hazardous to Your Liberty

Lynn M. Paltrow and Farah Diaz-Tello

While our country stands at a deadlock over legislation to ensure that millions of uninsured people have health care coverage, we can at least feel confident that some state legislators are hard at work, making it more difficult for women to access health care and much easier for states to put them, and the people who help them, in jail.

In Mississippi, legislators proposed a law, HB 695, which would make many forms of midwifery a crime. That is clearly bad for pregnant women and for babies for at least one very simple reason. As the White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood pointed out after Hurricane Katrina, when hospitals shut down as a result of a disaster, midwives are among the few who know how to deliver babies without electronic fetal monitors, surgical theatres or epidurals. For this reason, the Alliance highlighted the need to protect (not criminalize) midwives who have the skills needed under such circumstances.

When disasters hit, however, it is not only the women who are going to term who are in trouble. As the National Network of Abortion Funds found out after Hurricane Katrina forced abortion providers to close their doors, many women were also left without access to urgently needed abortion services.

If Utah lawmakers have their way, a woman under similar circumstances who attempts to take matters into her own hands could be charged with murder under House Bill 12, the state's effort to outlaw "self-abortions."

Right-to-life organizations have long maintained that if abortion were outlawed, only doctors who performed the abortions would go to jail. But Utah's proposed law ensures that women themselves, and not just those who help them, will be incarcerated for a minimum of 15 years. (Since 61 percent of women who have abortions are already mothers, a woman convicted under this law would, with any luck, be out of jail in time to see her son or daughter graduate from high school.)

Even without such a law, police officers in Iowa recently arrested a woman in her second trimester of pregnancy for the crime of attempted feticide after she tripped and fell down a flight of stairs [emphasis mine]. The county attorney's office dropped the case only after they decided that their unprecedented interpretation of the feticide law should only be applied to pregnant women in their third trimester. But in Utah, the law would expressly apply to pregnant women at all stages of pregnancy. So, if you are pregnant and clumsy in Utah, you could be charged with attempted murder, even in the first trimester.

As a sign-on petition opposing the Utah bill points out, pretty much any woman who suffers a miscarriage or stillbirth and is engaged in an activity that she "should have reason to know" would endanger her fetus can now be charged with murder or attempted murder.

Suffer a pregnancy loss after a car accident you may have caused? Murder. Follow your doctor's advice to treat your cancer despite the risks it might pose to your unborn child? Attempted murder.

Bizarrely, the Utah law has an exemption that protects women who "fail to follow medical advice," but nothing in the law protects women who do follow medical advice. Thus women who disagree with a doctor's advice to have cesarean surgery can't be prosecuted, but a woman who takes prescription medications that may risk harm to an unborn child could end up behind bars.

Meanwhile, in Kentucky, House Bill 136 would create a new crime just for pregnant women. According to this law, "[a] woman is guilty of substance endangerment of a child prior to birth when, knowing she is pregnant, she causes her child to be born" with controlled substances or alcohol in the child's bodily fluids. What that means is that, if this law is passed, it would literally be a crime for a pregnant woman to give birth if the child she gives birth to has any amount of a controlled substance or alcohol in its body.

It is well known that laws which threaten to punish women who carry their pregnancies to term in spite of a drug or alcohol problem place substantial pressure on women to have unwanted abortions. This is because it is hard for people to overcome an addiction quickly (just ask Rush Limbaugh). For pregnant women who face many barriers to treatment, there is no guarantee that they will be cured quickly enough to be sure they won't be arrested if they go to term. Such laws are also known to deter women from care, increasing the risks to maternal, fetal and child health. It would be nice to think that Kentucky legislators did not mean to make it a crime for some woman to cause their children "to be born," but the fact that this law has been proposed over the objections of every leading health group makes us wonder.

And finally, we wonder about Nebraska's commitment to protecting fetuses from pain. Nebraska House Bill 1103 would protect some fetuses from pain by banning virtually all women from obtaining abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. Although abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy are extremely rare (constituting only 1.5 percent of all abortions), and the doctors who perform them are heroes to the women who need such procedures, this law would make those doctors criminals.

The Nebraska legislators who support this bill claim that after 20 weeks of pregnancy an unborn child is capable of experiencing substantial pain. Certainly, if this is true, then fetuses must also suffer pain from forceps deliveries, internal electronic fetal monitoring (requiring the insertion of sharp metal wires into the delicate fetal scalp) and from chemically induced labor in which the fetus is subjected to repeated, violent maternal uterine contractions and then forced through the narrow vaginal canal. If Nebraska legislators were truly committed to preventing fetal pain, then they should also ban pitocin-induced vaginal births and other fetal-pain inducing delivery techniques and arrest the doctors who carry them out.

The lawmakers supporting these bills claim that they are trying to bar bad things from happening to pregnant women and the unborn. But whatever their stated good intentions, make no mistake, these bills are really about putting pregnant women and the people who support them behind bars.

i noticed i never wrote that post on circumcision that i was planning on. i guess now is as good a time as any (odd since i'm having a girl, but whatever).

as a non-disclaiming disclaimer: i am not going to pad my words in this post. this is what i really think, and it's a subject about which i have spent a lot of time thinking, and i feel very strongly about it. i'm going to say what i want to say, and without intending to offend anyone, i'm sure i will. i'm sorry about that--i promise i am not judging YOU or your personal decisions, i am only sharing MY feelings on the matter. on a similar note: i STRONGLY believe in parental rights, so alas, it is the parents' choice what to do with their helpless offspring; one hopes the parents have enough compassion to be open to the best interests of the child, but if not, it is their right to decide nonetheless. i do not believe in any state or federal intervention between parents and children unless abuse is apparent (the legal definition of "abuse" then becomes the problem, but that is a whole other issue that doesn't need to mix itself up in here).

so off we go... on circumcision.

"...an intact body is a universal human right." NOHARMM.org

opening question: would you circumcise your daughter? then why your son? it. is. the. same. thing.

we take a perfectly healthy infant and remove a functioning part of his body. a part that he would--by all accounts--be better off for having, both physically and emotionally.

first of all, WHY?
historically, we are told the reasons for circumcision are basically hygienic. we have been taught that uncircumcised penises are dirty, dangerous, and difficult to care for. medical research shows that none of the above are true; the most common problem with intact foreskin later in life is "phimosis," which affects 2% of intact males, on average, and can be treated almost 99% of the time without surgery. so the fear that "it will have to be done later anyway" is medically unfounded. the idea that uncircumcised men spread STDs more easily has also been disproven. as for difficult to care for--please. even if it were true, which it isn't, are we now using laziness as a good reason to perform unnecessary surgeries on infants?

in fact, almost all circumcisions are performed for religious or cultural reasons; i.e., conformity of the child to the "norm" to which the parents are accustomed. i can't find the link now but i read (many times in various places) that women who were polled and said they were more likely to circumcise their sons admitted it was because of THEIR OWN SEXUAL PREFERENCE. part of the poll was also to ask whether they had been with an intact male or not--those who had were less likely to have their sons circumcised. that's what you call fear of the unknown; thus, the "cultural" reasons for most circumcisions. it's bad enough that most are done out of ignorance--the idea that women are molding their sons' bodies based on their own sexual ideology borders on twisted. what right would a father have to give his daughter breast implants because it was HIS preference in women?

in the 1800s and 1900s circumcision was performed (almost exclusively) as a means to curb the prevalence of masturbation in children. yes, the reason most men in the US are mutilated is because of the victorian mass-hysteria and fear of sexuality which literally altered the perceptions of the medical community through the 1920s and on.

Dr. E.J. Spratling, who promoted this surgery by telling his colleagues that "...circumcision is undoubtedly the physician's closest friend and ally..." prescribed in 1895 the method of circumcision as it is practiced in hospitals today.

"To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and mucous membrane to rather put it on the stretch when erections come later. There must be no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis, for should there be any play the patient will be found to readily resume his practice not begrudging the time and extra energy required to produce the orgasm... We may not be sure that we have done away with the possibility of masturbation, but we may feel confident that we have limited it to within the danger lines."
(E.J. Spratling, MD. Medical Record, Masturbation in the Adult, vol. 48, no. 13, September 28, 1895, pp. 442-443.)

doesn't that make you feel good? today's medical practice is informed by a bunch of erotophobes with the misperception that masturbation made people sick and degenerate. mutilation of the body was considered an appropriate response to "dangerous" (natural human) behavior. and here's a telling gem:

"A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement."
(John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., "Treatment for Self-Abuse and its Effects," Plain Fact for Old and Young. Burlington, Iowa: F. Segner & Co. (1888). P. 295) [yes, like kellogg's cereal. that's him.]

so the POINT is for it to be painful and traumatic, in order to create lasting associations between sexuality and pain, with pleasure as a bad, scary, and ultimately traumatic experience. you are bad for wanting that, and you will be punished. if you have been circumcised, the punishment is lifelong. (by the way, carbolic acid is phenol, the numbing agent in chloraseptic spray. why numb the girls and mutilate the boys? it doesn't make sense...)

the american association of pediatrics has stated as of 1999:

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision [emphasis mine]. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision."

when you have babies, if you haven't already, let me know if you are presented with "accurate and unbiased information" (or any information whatsoever) on circumcision before they ask you on delivery day what you want to do. if they ask at all.

some physical consequences of circumcision, or What Is Lost
1. The frenar band of soft ridges--the single most pleasure producing zone on the male body. Loss of this densely innervated and reactive belt of tissue reduces the sensitivity of the remaining penis to about that of ordinary skin.

2. Approximately half of the temperature reactive smooth muscle sheath called the dartos fascia.

3. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, a component of the immune system.

4. An estimated 240 feet of microscopic nerves, including branches of the dorsal nerve.

5. Between 10,000 to 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types, which can discern slight motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture. This loss includes thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors called the Meissner's corpuscles - the most important sensory component in the foreskin.

6. Estrogen receptors the purpose and value of which are not yet fully understood.

7. More than 50% of the mobile penile skin, the multi-purpose covering of the glans, that shields all of the specialized penile skin from abrasion, drying, and callusing (by keratin cell layering), and protects it from dirt and other contaminants. The debilitating sexual consequences of keratinizing the glans have never been studied. [this is when the head of the penis becomes more callous--less sensitive--over time in reaction to constant exposure and stimulus with clothing]

8. The immunological defense system of the soft mucosa, which may produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme, also found in mothers milk, and plasma cells, which secrete immunoglobulin antibodies.

9. Lymphatic vessels, the loss of which interrupts the lymph flow within a part of the body's immune system.

10. The frenulum, the very sensitive "V" shaped web-like tethering structure on the underside of the glans; usually amputated along with the foreskin, or severed, which destroys its functionality.

11. The apocrine glands of the inner foreskin, which produce pheromones—nature's powerful, silent, invisible behavioral signals to potential sexual partners. They contribute significantly to sexuality. Their loss is unstudied.

12. Ectopic sebaceous glands, which lubricate and moisturize.

13. The essential "gliding" mechanism. If unfolded and spread out flat, the average adult foreskin measures about 15 square inches, the size of a postcard. This abundance of specialized, self-lubricating mobile skin gives the natural penis its unique hallmark ability to smoothly "glide" in and out within itself—permitting natural non-abrasive masturbation and intercourse, without drying out the vagina or requiring artificial lubricants.

14. The pink to red to dark purple natural coloration of the glans, normally an internal organ, like the tongue.

15. A significant amount of the penis circumference because its double layered wrapping of loose foreskin is now missing making the circumcised penis defectively thinner than a full-sized intact penis.

16. As much as one inch of the erect penis length due to amputation when the connective tissue is torn apart during "circumcision." This shared membrane tightly fuses the foreskin and the glans together while the penis develops. Ripping it apart wounds the glans, leaving it raw and subject to infection, scarring, and shrinkage.

17. Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery. The loss of this dense vascularity interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, obviously damaging its natural function and possibly stunting its complete and healthy development.

18. Every year boys lose their penises altogether from botched "circumcisions" and infections accidents happen. They are then "sexually reassigned" by transgender surgery and must live their lives as females.

19. Every year many boys lose their lives from the complications of medically unnecessary circumcisions. The cause of these deaths are a fact the billion dollar per year circumcision industry willfully obscures and conceals.

20. Although not yet proved scientifically, there is considerable new evidence that an incomplete penis loses its capacity for the subtle electromagnetic "cross-communication" that occurs only during contact between two mucous membranes, and which contributes to the perception of sexual ecstasy. In other words, medically unjustified foreskin amputation of boys ultimately diminishes the intensity of orgasms for both men and women!

"The fundamental biological sex act becomes, for the circumcised male,
simply satisfaction of an urge and not the refined sensory experience
that it was meant to be."
Falliers, C.J. Circumcision. Journal of the American Medical Assn., vol. 214, 1970, pp. 2194-2195

(i don't know about you, but i mourn for our men. it makes me SO SAD to think what they have lost--and what we have lost through their loss--and can never get back. deep down i feel this is truly an explanation for much of the difference between men and women's expressions of sexuality. circumcised men have no choice but to be rougher, less sensual, and more to-the-point... their equipment is irreparably damaged and dulled, ON PURPOSE. removing the most sensual part of someone's body is unforgivable and at least equivalent to the rape of a virgin... the most intimate thing, both in concept (as pleasure) and material (as flesh), stolen before he even knows what it is or what it means; and he will never get it back. there is no justification for that in my eyes.)

i cannot even begin to address #18. it is true--look it up yourself.

a few other issues to consider
so. there is no proven medical reason to circumcise babies routinely. and just knowing what it does to them physically, there should be no religious or cultural reason good enough to override that.

for a long time (and even still, sometimes) doctors told parents "babies don't feel pain" because their memories are not developed enough. i'm sure that would make me feel better, watching my newborn son screaming--and in some cases they stop breathing from shock--and betting on the fact that it's ok because 'he won't remember it.' except i know already that my still-womb-bound daughter recognizes my voice, so she must have a memory, mustn't she? mothers report a loss of bonding attachment and difficulty breastfeeding after circumcision (still searching for that link), and if we think for a moment from the infant's perspective, even if it is a purely emotional one: your mother, your world, has failed to protect you in the most basic way. your body has been violated and mutilated. you are in pain; you are no longer whole. would you continue to trust mother to protect you any longer? would you trust anyone ever again? perhaps this is why so many men harbor unconscious rage towards their mothers... as Marilyn Milos, Founder and Director of NOCIRC says, "Circumcision is where sex and violence meet for the first time."

maybe your son will come to resent the decision you made for him when he was a helpless child (assuming he is even aware of it). according to a 1996 study, "among the 46% of men circumcised in infancy with a definite opinion about their genital condition, the ratio of happy to unhappy men was 50:50. The ratio of men happy to be intact versus those who were unhappily intact was 31:1 (97% vs. 3%). The lowest satisfaction rate was observed in those circumcised in infancy."

"I'm left with a sense of impotence and powerlessness and a fear
about the power of others to hurt me grievously." NY/1930

i hope people bother to wonder what men think about their circumcisions before doing it to their own babies.

by the way i didn't really go into the many (many) ways that a circumcision can be botched, permanently scarring the man in minor to major ways--plenty of which he might never realize are the result of the procedure, and not a "natural defect" in his body. here is a site with photos and links to more.

conclusion
if you go through the links i put in this text you will find a universe of information from doctors, lawyers, researchers, men, and even women on both sides of the fence. do what you have to do, but do it with a fully informed conscience so that if you are ever asked by your child, "why did you do that to me?" you can answer with more than, "uhh..." seriously. we are talking about amputation, after all.

for me the only truly important question is, "whose body is it?"

and then suddenly a bit of timeless wisdom from my grandmother's refrigerator pops into my head:

if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

anyone reading this probably already knows this stuff, but...

as yet another wonderful outgrowth of xtianity, we subconsciously accept that ALL WOMEN will suffer in childbirth because prototype female (ie, eve) made an oopsie at the alleged beginning of time.*

"Because of this interpretation, billions of people throughout the course of history have stated, affirmed, believed and acted upon the notion that pain and difficulty must accompany labor** as a result of the curse given to the first woman, Eve. Another explanation is that because major religions had such a powerful impact on society as a whole the idea of the woman having to have pain in labor permeated and anchored itself to birthing in our minds.

This influence affected and continues to affect how birthing is generally portrayed in movies, TV shows, magazines, books etc. The validation of this historical event through religious figures and the media causes it to become ingrained in the consciousness of society as a whole and that affects you.

Why, you ask? Because when we are exposed to certain ideas as children we just accept them without question. If the majority of society says that there must be pain in birthing, people believe that there must be pain."

your subconscious mind is incredibly powerful in influencing your experience of life. imagine, centuries of painful births as a direct consequence of it being easier to believe someone else's truth than to seek one's own.

[enter the radical, highly challenging, and rebellious side of rhiannon's brain]

to the billions of women throughout history who have had painful childbirth experiences: i am sorry to tell you this, but you were tricked. coerced. brainwashed.

it didn't have to be that way, but unfortunately you were in a battle for your own experience without ever realizing it. society, your parents, your friends, your TV, and your doctors all told you "what birth is like" and your subconscious ate up their teachings and made them real, creating your experience (which then conveniently validated everything you were previously told).

and while i feel for you, and hate the system that made you suffer, i have learned from your ordeals. thanks to you, i know better. my experience will not be like yours--it will be mine.

so forgive me when i shut my ears to your recounting of the 20-hour agonizing, episiotomied, labor... when i gaze vacantly in response to your reassurances that i will "beg for an epidural"... and when maybe, one day, i tell you to be quiet because i don't want to hear about it anymore. you will not make me suffer the way you did. (and while i know that is not your intent, it is a consequence of the re-telling: perpetual reinforcement of any idea tends it towards widespread truth.)

i can't hear you when you try to scare me. i know that you were duped and i refuse to be. your truth is not my truth... i will find my own, thank you very much.

i am going to find more books like this.



*alternate reading of the story (my philosophical version): perhaps it was more complex than we are lead to believe. eve*** ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge, and as a result became more "mental" (knowledge) and less in tune with her own inner truth... thus she was willing to believe it when god suggested she should suffer in birth. the curse/gift of the fruit of knowledge is to become gullible and convinceable--to be doubtful of our own truth in favor of external pressure--not to have the apparently random punishment of labor pains. as Goethe said, "We know accurately only when we know little; with knowledge doubt increases." we doubt, and that is the double-edged sword of the gift of knowledge.

**also can we just address the use of the word LABOR (or better yet, 'hard labor') to describe birth?! how's that for subtlely conjuring physico-emotional associations?

***the more i look at the word "eve" the more it looks like a vagina squished between two boobs. weird.

i got a note on my door on 9/24 that a certified letter was waiting for me, but (assuming it was a credit-related harassment) i didn't bother to pick it up until yesterday... to my total shock, and incidentally, amusement, it was a letter from All About Women, the OB/CNM office i went to a few weeks ago.

wondering what the hell they would be sending to me via certified mail, i opened it right there in the post office and immediately burst out laughing:

September 18, 2008

Dear Ms. x,

This letter is to inform you that you are being discharged as a patient of [name], CNM. You are being dismissed for the following reasons:

1. We have a difference in philosophy of care.
2. [something about how they want me to be happy with blah blah] and I do not feel that we can give you the kind of care that you desire.

The rest of the letter was letting me know i have 30 days to see them again "for emergencies only" and that they strongly suggest i find a new provider ASAP.

*rofl*

i didn't even know they could do that!! i've never heard of a doctor "dismissing" a patient. all i can say is i'm glad our philosophical disagreement was clearly not just in my head... however it is quite disturbing to me that they outed me on the simple basis that i questioned the medical necessity of the procedures they wanted to do to me. that was the ONLY thing i did that could possibly have turned her off. i was polite and engaged, but i asked questions and didn't acquiesce with everything she said they'd be doing.

and she's a midwife for f***'s sake! but apparently she doesn't believe in women's ability to dictate their own pregnancies and births despite that...

beware of questioning your doctors. they might decide not to see you anymore! :D

(reposted from some brilliant chick on craigslist in portland, july 2006)

You heard me, don't touch me. That means you. I do not want you touching my belly. Yes, I know, "it's a miracle" and "it's so interesting" but it's my body; not yours. Move away from my belly. If you are so tempted to touch, ASK FIRST and when, if, I tell you "NO", respect my answer. Do not attempt to change my mind. Do not ask incredulously, "Why not?" Do not tell me that I'm not being fair. Do not pout and do not ask again. You wouldn't expect to touch a non-pregnant woman's belly; do not expect to touch mine. I don't care to share my "miracle" with you. That is something for my husband and me.

And while you are at it, stop wagging your finger at me if I have a glass of wine. Don't tell me I shouldn't eat tuna or sushi or anything else for that matter. I am a grown woman and intelligent human being (likely more intelligent and educated than you) and I have consulted my doctor regarding all consumables that I have any desire to consume. If I'm drinking my one-a-week glass of wine, I'd like to enjoy it without your hysterical reaction. Europeans have no issue with a glass and thousands of women before me have indulged much more than I. If I'm having sushi, I don't need your eyeballs falling out because you "can't believe I would risk it". Like the wine, my doctor okayed sushi and any number of other foods you may not approve.

Unless you are my doctor or my husband, you may keep your opinions to yourself; I'm not interested. In fact, I'm probably less interested in your opinion than you are of hearing my opinions on your beliefs on abortion, your scoundrel of an ill-behaved child and thus, your rearing techniques, your likely lack of intelligence and/or common sense, not to mention decorum and tact, your hairstyle or the sludge you find acceptable to eat.


btw, to the idiot that says it's a little late to be saying 'no touching' now that I'm knocked up - if you read the first paragraph of my post, it's pretty clear that I don't have a problem with my husband touching me ("That is something for my husband and me."). My husband has privileges with me that you and everyone else do NOT have, just as he had before I became pregnant.

[end quote]

hell yes! that chick just said everything i already want to say, and i don't even have people touching my belly (or even knowing i'm pregnant) yet!

today it became obvious to me that my boss has no idea that i do not intend to come back to work after this baby is born.

it puts me in a really shitty situation, because i don't want to point it out too early and have to deal with the wrath of a bitchy boss, but at the same time, preparing them early will make it easier for us all to transition when the time comes... she actually said something about how she'll have to 'take over while [i'm] gone' but that she's glad it will be summer (may)... and i had to bite my tongue not to say "ha!! you think i'll be here all the way through may? are you nuts?!" but that's how i felt, and i got a little peeved that she thinks i would wait until the last minute to take leave for something this important. i swear the woman thinks she owns me. well, i look forward to the revelation in march or april that i will never be coming back...

but seriously, in this day and age does she really think i can afford child care on the crappy salary they pay me?! it wouldn't come close to being worth it (nevermind that i disagree with it anyway). i don't get it.

so yeah, i'm kind of annoyed. it just makes me want to be snippy and just march in there and say "oh by the way, i'm done here. thanks for nothing." grr.

before i get to the saturn return post i have to vent a little bit...

i am totally amazed at the negative reactions i have received when talking with people about how and where i intend to birth MY child. i was asked (by my boss and co-worker) whether i've gone to the doctor and i mentioned that i plan to visit the birth center soon and immediately got a strange attitude from them... total fear reactions and skepticism... then my boss asked me why i want to go there and i told her honestly that i don't feel hospitals are conducive to the natural conditions the body creates to evoke the best possible labor... and she snickered and gave me this "you don't know what you are talking about" look. it really offended me.

NO i do not want pain medications. NO i do not want monitors and IVs and nurses prodding me. NO i am not interested in induction, epidurals, or episiotomies, and i definitely do not ever want a c section!

she literally looked at me like i'm an idiot for wanting to birth at a center, let alone at home (you should have seen the reaction i got to that)! she said with a smirk, "it will be interesting to see how your opinion changes as you progress." now i realize that i am taking this a little too much to heart but fuck man, are women so detached from the power and wisdom of their bodies that they think they need a hospital to effectively give birth? like we haven't been doing this--without any help from anyone!--for thousands of years? it's a tragedy, and it's maddening... and the worst part is that i know she is expressing the consensus opinion on the subject. most women know nothing of birth other than what they have been told by doctors (which then becomes their own experience of birth, confirming what the doctors said in the first place).

i am truly sorry if your labor was agony and horrible and you begged for an epidural, but it doesn't matter to me; i know that i am not like you, because i understand how we create our own experiences out of our expectations and subconscious thoughts. i have never had a baby--or even been pregnant--before, but i KNOW my body knows what to do. i KNOW i can have an amazing, joyful, ecstatic birth as long as i trust my body to do what it is made to do. why is that so hard for other people to believe? or if they don't believe it, why do they feel they must convince me as well?

i realized today that the only thing i am afraid of is losing faith in myself in the face of others' doubt. it's miserable to feel like i can't be honest about my intentions without being bluntly and offensively judged for it...