It was when we got pregnant and chose to stay pregnant, that the old system clicked in. But the old system was having its technological revolution too. “Machines that go beep” were entering women’s experience of giving birth. And you either went with the flow, or you didn’t. Not going with the flow attracted social attention – “you are thinking of yourself and not your baby and your partner” (the new word emerged out of the business world and entered the home).
I noticed that men are acutely hierarchical in that they defer to higher ranking men. So, if their partner says she doesn’t want, e.g. an episiotomy, and the doctor says he’s going to do one, the man will most of the time agree with the doctor and literally hold his wife down while another man cuts her vagina. Women who have access to professional information know there is no basis, other than poor midwifery skill, for episiotomies (OK there are rare occasions, and this is women’s business, but please stay with me on this), see the father of their child participating in the socially condoned physical assault. Now what choice does a woman have here? The man hasn’t the wherewithal to analyse his reaction. The doctor won’t and the woman either has a group of sisters with whom to discuss her feelings of betrayal or she swallows it. Many women have swallowed it and the anger seeps out in other ways. I think the men know at a deep level that they haven’t got it right, despite their good intentions, and they are angry about it too. We are a very angry society. So, what do we do about it?

Some people place far too much emphasis on what others think about them, their opinions, their choices, their lives in general.

What does that mean for personal identity?

The identity of this personality type may be characterised by overt insecurity, compromised self-esteem, emotional immaturity/frailty, inability/unwillingness to take responsibility for one's outlook. Instead blaming society and various elements within it.

Politics is a way to play the blame game. The writer takes it one step further, invoking emotional sensibilities attached to personal insecurity to passively/aggressively advance a political agenda for personal gain. Hence those who have piped up in this post, having recognising an alterior motive.

This modus infers the depths of the writer's insecurity. By (consciosuly or unconciosuly) baiting a scapegoat, our responses validate her angst, thus suring up, perpetuating and compounding the insecurity.

Political ideologies keep people mired in a sense of helplessness. They must. For once we think we have the power to effect change, what need do we have for those that would rescue us from ourselves?

The writer has used a body politic to disown the seeds of her discontent. This could be seen as a sign of insecurity.

In this article... motherhood, fatherhood, babies, society, feminism, gender roles, men, patriarchy, the price of fish on a balmy wednesday summer morning when the relative humidity is above 85% and the wind blows from the south... are all irrational psychological defences against personal responsibility for an identity defined by insecurity.

Reasons offered that potentially drive that insecurity might be crutches for evading personal accountability. Another defining attribute of identity.

The world is full of people with opinions. Take a stand. Dare to be who you want to be, who you are. Dont get down on yourself based on what others think or say about you. Their approval is unnecessary. No need to attack (elements of) society. That is self destructive. Please dont make yourself unhappy.

Getting off the blame train is the first step to personal accountability, which in turn, is the first step to feeling good about oneself.

All the best.

What a bunch of whimps.Not so long ago Asian women would have a child in the paddy field and continue working that very same day.

By wanting it all, i.e. the high powered career,money and the token child,women have lowered the status of motherhood.

What can be more important than bringing up the next generation that will replace us?Corporations,Govt and both sexes must come to this realisation.We should not rely on the State to raise our children,nor should we expect others to pay for our indulgent lifestyles.

Let single income families on less than $100,000.oo pa income splint for the first four years of their child's life.Make child care for two days a week tax deductable.Reduce the size of our bloated bureaucracies and reduce taxes.Then our economy will boom.We will all be then much happier vegemites,since we will then have more time for family interaction.

"I noticed that men are acutely hierarchical in that they defer to higher ranking men. So, if their partner says she doesn’t want, e.g. an episiotomy, and the doctor says he’s going to do one, the man will most of the time agree with the doctor and literally hold his wife down while another man cuts her vagina."

This statement is inflammatory!

Men will sometimes defer to the person they think has the expertise and knowledge. Medical opinion is divided on episiotomies. However episiotomies came about to prevent 3rd degree vaginal tears, which can leave women incontinent.

"Women who have access to professional information know there is no basis, other than poor midwifery skill, for episiotomies"

This is not correct, vaginal tears can occur from either a babies head being too big or too quick a labour are the major causes.

On one hand the author says that this stuff is 'women's business' yet men are expected to be a partner through pregnancy, child birth and child raising. If we are going to divide things into women's and men's business then we should go back to the old sterotypes.

Unfortunately sometimes child birth does not go to plan and complications occur and this is where the mother can feel a loss of control as medical intervention takes over and sometimes even medical intervention goes wrong.

When situations go wrong people look to blame someone, even when it was out of the control of everyone.

Trade215 -
Out of interest: who were you referring to in that “founding mother” thing? The first feminists? When? The 17th century when they were campaigning for women’s education? Or are we talking 18th century here? Or the 19th? John Stuart Mills, Mary Wollstonecraft, Charles Fourier, right? But they were campaigning for women’s rights within marriage, if you’ll remember,

While Henry Compte de Saint Simon - celebrated author of the first feminist magazine- only advocated free love as a means of strengthening marriage and was talked down by the women of his group.

Robert Owen and Frances Wright, William Thompson and Anna Wheeler were advocating the right for free speech for women, Taylor and Leigh-Smith were after married women’s property rights, and even the Suffragists of the mid-19th century were only campaigning for women’s education and the right to vote.

Nary a patriarchal conspiracy between the lot of them. You might also note that many of those “founding mothers” were also “founding fathers” . (Er, the word I think you were looking for in connection with these founding men and women was “proselytizing” which means “to convert”. Am unsure what your word prothle-whatsit actually means). And while we're on the subject of founding fathers, why consistently employ the word patriarchal as if it were a term dreamt up by evil feminists, instead of a mere descriptive word used to define Western sociological groups? Its not up for debate, or needing quotation marks. Like it or lump it, it just is.

I suggest the reason people question your right to “dare” to argue is because you don’t have a complete grasp on the subject. Perhaps you should take a break from expressing misinformed opinion, go to the library and read up on the history, aims and discourses of the feminist movement, rather than gleaning bits and pieces from uneducated, partisan or biased sources. And yeah, mate, that includes the telly, Wikipedia, yours and the missus’s mates and snide articles in the popular press.

KerryMcG

That was really wild stuff you said about episiotomies.

Why promote the mendacious radical feminist tripe that the medical profession has somehow 'medicalised childbirth' and continually performs unnecessary procedures. Medicine is a science and relies on proven, documented methods.

I feel for doctors who mop up when complications arise from midwives interventions and then have to record such errors against their own results.

It is easy and safe for middle class women in major centres to snipe at the superb medical facilities to which they have ready and immediate access, but talk to women in remote areas. Ask Australian women would would volunteer for childbirth in countries where midwives are in abundance but there are few trained doctors.

Kerry claimed that husbands would join agree to unnecessary procedures. This is such a load of nonsense but it says volumes about where Kerry is coming from.

It is only in recent times that wives have had the support of their husbands at childbirth. This was demanded by women and men and obviously not by feminists who have too many sexual hang-ups to see any advantage in it. But for the record, it was female midwives (not mothers or 'men') who excluded fathers from experiencing the miracle of birth with their partners.

Just as a comment on midwives, in the prenatal education we received, some midwives wasted the class's time with bitches about how they would like to extend their role; endless guff about squatting for delivery (helpful in Africa); and how we should have intercourse immediately before birth because the semen assisted dilation. In a politically correct world I guess they get away with stuff like that, but they scared the class more than they assisted it.

You hear the uninformed feminist criticisms of doctors and medical specialists, but I would place my trust in these professionals every time and I count my blessings that now we are within thirty minutes of a major teaching hospital with infant resusitation facilities.