Re: GAPS- birth

[Guest guest]

Anne Marie-

Yes, birth rape. Anyone who cuts a woman's vagina unnecessarily and

against her will (and nearly all episiotomies are unnecessary) is raping

them. I did not coin the term, there is a book similarly titled- it's on

my list but I haven't read it yet. There are many simple techniques to

stretch and support the surrounding tissues as a baby is being born and

prevent tearing, rather than cutting. Also, certain deficiencies would

make the skin more likely to tear- vitamin C, magnesium, animal fats. I

have to give props to my medwife, she did do the work to make sure there

was minimal tearing. In a waterbirth, the water supports and soothes the

tissues and helps prevent tears.

In our culture, women are totally disempowered during birth. They are

forced to lie on their backs, connected to machines- which totally

inhibits the process of dialating the cervix much of the time. If you

read the Henci Goer, she compares studies showing how monitoring effects

birth outcomes. And, the drugs that they give you do get to the baby.

If your birth was a fairly short c-section, then there weren't drugs in

your babies' system very long. But some mothers are drugged for the

entirety of fairly long labors, and without a doubt that affects the

clouding of the babies first conscious moments on earth.

I got a grant in college to do research on the history of the

representation of female doctors, midwives and childbirth in 19th and

early 20th century literature. But as research projects go it expanded,

and in order to understand the nuances of the texts and textual criticism

I had to read lots of history of the medical establishment and childbirth

from 1600-1940. Basically the doctors have been out to exterminate

midwifery and its body of knowledge since the London College of Physician

Poohbahs went after them as witches, somewhere around 1600. This was

after the Inquisition witch trials, but employed the fear left in the

minds of women about being associated with the 'wise women', and so

folklore and technique of childbirth in western tradition deteriorated

from there. . . .later in the 19th century, anesthesia was developed, and

the AMA used that as a weapon to compete with other practitioners who

were not allowed to share the pharmaceuticals or technology. I read very

specific notes of AMA meetings where doctors were encouraged to use all

weapons to secure patients and cultural hegemony for allopathy.

Childbirth had of course become more painful for women in the 350 years

prior, thanks to the persecution of the witch trials and lack of birth

chairs and experts in the process. The verbose point I'm trying to make

here is that the entire modern history of medical childbirth has been

profit driven, and has treated women as passive objects rather than

participants in birth. So it is not really shocking that doctors do not

tell women that they are capable of breech births, or that their cervix

will only cosmetically injure their child, especially considering the

probability for lawsuits, etc.

I'm really rambling lately. . . .

Desh