[stavros]

This article mixes the science with unnecessarily gendered language. It turns "a lying down position helps the doctor" to "men decided women should be on their backs" and "one pervert king liked watching women give birth, therefore somehow that's why".

Can't we just focus on the scientific advantages and not try to shoehorn sexism into everything?

[hgoel]

The claim also just doesn't make a lot of sense. So, a king or doctor decided women in France should be made to give birth on their backs a couple hundred years ago. Even if we accept that this would've been enough for a complete shift in how women give birth within France, how does that spread across the world?

I'd be interested in if these claims fit with places where "traditional" births/care systems are more common, i.e. places where births are primarily supported by the elder women of the community rather than formally educated medical professionals. Though, such places are also less likely to be reached by researchers.

[vharuck]

>Even if we accept that this would've been enough for a complete shift in how women give birth within France, how does that spread across the world?

France was renowned as being at the frontier of medicine. At least, according to the New Orleans Pharmacy Museum (which I'd recommend visiting for anyone in the area). People around the world looked to it for cutting edge techniques.

[impossiblefork]

Yes, but isn't the "one pervert king liked watching women give birth, therefore somehow that's why" actually correct, so that we should say something like "one pervert king liked watching women give birth and that's why people have done it this very, very silly way"?

[stavros]

The article explicitly says that we don't know how much he influenced anything, so the mention just seems to be thrown in for the controversy:

> "The influence of the king's policy is unknown, although the behaviour of royalty must have affected the populace to some degree,"

Given that we aren't sure that the king affected anything, mentioning this feels more like editorializing than evidence.

[impossiblefork]

I don't really agree, because these kings really had a say and people basically worshiped them. People imitate all sorts of things from how the kings and the courts did things, things like not buttoning the lowest button on their jackets, etc., so I think it may well have had a substantial influence.

[ShowalkKama]

knowing and thinking / assuming are two different things. Saying that "that's why people have done it" is simply and categorically wrong.

It is no doubt something that could prove interesting if shared when presenting the research (e.g. I went down this route, find this weird thing here, that unusual story there) but this article does accompany you through that process, it just presents the findings which makes the inclusion of this fact quite questionable.

[torlok]

I think it's useful to drive the point home that there is no good reason to give birth lying down. Otherwise you make it sound like "scientists say you should try this", and not "this was a stupid idea in the first place".

[stavros]

My issue with the article in general is that it undermines its own persuasiveness. It doesn't seem to say "giving birth sitting is better", or even "doctors wanted to have better visibility", but tries to cast it as a story of deliberate male oppression.

It's just unnecessarily divisive to try to turn this into a case of sexism, and I feel it takes away from the scientific angle of the article. Someone might very well dismiss the valid scientific findings as more about gender politics than science. It just doesn't seem to me like there's a need for the gendered slant.

[ekjhgkejhgk]

I agree with you. Whenever anyone says "oh this is actually the males doing XYZ" it reduces the persuasiveness.

It reminded me, I'm in an activist parents group and the other day a mom there was arguing that when the media uses the word "parenting" in the context of our focus subject, it's really a manifestation of the patriarchy keeping women oppressed (the implication that dads don't really parent, they just help the moms). There's loonies everywhere.

[Terr_]

I can imagine these two inverse outrages being deployed almost simultaneously:

* "When you call that parenting, you give unearned credit to men who aren't contributing, call it mothering."

* "When you call that mothering, you're letting men escape their duty to contribute, call it parenting."

Some sort of... prescriptive versus descriptive paradox, I bet it can be found in other contexts too.

[didibus]

> and not try to shoehorn sexism into everything

I don't think it's shoehorned in this case, it's scientific to also look at the historical context and causes.

The article tries to explain two things, what scientifically are the pros/cons of the position, but also tries to explain why it's the default position that is used in most hospitals and have been for a long time now, and if it's true that it's due to either convenience to the men (at the time) physicians, or weird pleasure of the King, than in both cases it would have been "for men".

That said, I'll grant you it doesn't seem to really know what caused the back position to become predominent, it seems more to only mention two possible cause of many more and leaves much to be desired in a thorough root cause, and so it's probably partially thrown in just for better engagement with the article :p

[1659447091]

> This article mixes the science with unnecessarily gendered language. It turns "a lying down position helps the doctor" to "men decided women should be on their backs" and "one pervert king liked watching women give birth, therefore somehow that's why".

Looking more into the history of it, I find the "gendered language" to instead be important factual context. It was also not the author who wrote about the king or other "gendered language" things but instead quotes from a birth center founder and a uni professor.

Also, in the article it says "They can thank a French man named François Mauriceau". The King was a possible influence but not "one pervert king liked watching women give birth, therefore somehow that's why". The article says nothing about "a lying down position helps the doctor".

Mauriceau, who wrote a book "that helped establish obstetrics as science"[0], thought of pregnancy as illness, and that it would be "more convenient for the male physician attending". This is an important tidbit, as the article continues, "(there was already a movement emerging to dispense of midwives and instead have male surgeons present at births)."

The only problem with the "gendered language" is not explaining it further, and probably where the immediate jump to thinking it's "sexism" comes from.

At that time "man-midwives", or people with medical education and the same educational requirements as a surgeon, decided "midwifery" was a great side hustle and created a movement to push traditional midwives out of the birthing process by saying the job required a medical degree, that only men could get. Since men had no idea what the natural process for child birth was, unlike midwives who probably went through it themselves, they decided that having a woman lying down was less work for the people attending. This happened specifically because they were male. The females were pushed out of the birthing process at this time. It went against everything that women had for millennia been doing. It's absolutely important to point that out when trying to give background on why -- all of a sudden -- this natural process was perverted. I don't know how else they could put it other than, it was more convenient (and profitable) for men at the time. And propagated because one guy, who thought of it as an illness, decided he knew better and other doctors decided to listen to him.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/François_Mauriceau

[IAmBroom]

> The article says nothing about "a lying down position helps the doctor".

> Mauriceau, who wrote a book "that helped establish obstetrics as science"[0], thought of pregnancy as illness, and that it would be "more convenient for the male physician attending".

You contradict yourself in the very next sentence.

[1659447091]

>> "a lying down position helps the doctor".

>> "more convenient for the male physician attending".

> You contradict yourself in the very next sentence.

"helping" a doctor do their function is not the same as being "convenient" for a doctor. Especially in the context of "a lying down position", which makes "helps the doctor" imply a functionally needed assist in the child birth. Being "convenient" is further expanded on in my last paragraph, and it in no way has anything to do with functionally "helping" the child birth.

[andrewflnr]

90% of the article is about the scientific advantages. You've chosen to fixate on the "sexism" part which is, as other commenters pointed out, mainly there to explain why things are done this way today at all. I don't think it's the article that's the problem.

[stavros]

No you're right, the subtitle that says "It's all because of a Frenchman who decided it was more convenient – for men" was definitely me reading between the lines, I can't believe I even attributed a gendered slant.

[andrewflnr]

Pardon me for paying attention to the actual article instead of the subtitle likely written by someone else. And it's not as if you can credibly claim it's not relevant, since the first thing we want to know about any stupid practice is why it got started. So unless you have evidence that it's incorrect, you're just getting offended at... actual facts.

[puelocesar]

I think you are being a bit hysterical and trying to find an issue where there’s none.

The article is just trying to find an historical explanation on why something so inefficient became norm in modern civilization, there’s no sexism here…

[stavros]

So you think "doctors wanted to see better and didn't think it would hurt anything" and "It's all because of a Frenchman who decided it was more convenient – for men." are equally gender-agnostic?

[bad_username]

This is why legacy media keep losing audience and trust.

[watwut]

No, that is because they sanewash trump and republicans constantly.

[1718627440]

Not everything is about US domestic politics (although these certainly influence other countries).

[hulitu]

> Can't we just focus on the scientific advantages and not try to shoehorn sexism into everything.

Why are you trying to destroy journalism ? The guy is trying to make a point and he needed some "metaphors". If he only presents scientific facts, the article will be short and boring. /s