|
Post by tapati on Jun 2, 2010 10:59:31 GMT -5
Going through my archives last year I came across a letter I wrote to my ex when we were separated. The point of it was that he needed to grow up and learn to do difficult things for the sake of his family if he wanted us to get back together. But along the way I, too, criticized worldly mothers in my own way in this excerpt:
March 20, 1981
...A woman is forced to grow up when she has children—the pregnancy, the childbirth itself, and taking care of children all forces women to take responsibility. You learn that there are so many unpleasant, unrewarding and even painful things that have to be done whether you want to or not. There is hardly any escape for a woman from these duties. Of course there is abortion—but she must still face the karma. Then if she accepts being pregnant, there is the birth. The women who go into the hospital and accept anesthesia think they are escaping the pain, but their children are born blue and gasping if alive at all, are taken from them, and then they suffer post-natal depression and never regain the level of intimacy they might have had with their baby.
After the birth other women take the easy road of child raising and bottle feed, move the baby to a nursery, let the child cry it out at night, schedule feedings for their convenience, hire a nurse or babysitters anywhere from 3 nights a week or all day while they work, or even feed downers to the kids. By escaping their responsibilities both they and especially their children suffer.
The women who do everything the natural way learn (particularly in birth) that there are so many duties that can’t easily be avoided so they may as well accept them with a positive attitude. Before Lakshmana was born I was still a child myself. When I was in labor my mind was still seeking a means of escape from the pain. Even when I was pushing I was actually desiring to go to the hospital and get knocked out. Finally I realized that the only way to get rid of the pain was to put everything I had into getting him out. That was my first small step on the path of growing up.
I am much amused at my notion of how all those "bad" moms escaped their child-rearing responsibilities. Raising my kids homeless up and down the coast was surely much better! I think I'd read too many issues of Mothering magazine...I was 22 at this time.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Jun 2, 2010 12:26:42 GMT -5
Gosh, Tapati. I really wonder where the 'positive attitude' in the face of all that suffering is to come from? I remember reading stuff like this from mothers in my church, who were similarly sold on the 'everything natural' line, and thinking 'there is one sure way to escape all that misery - not having kids!' It was around this time that I decided my calling in life was to be a truck driver. I was planning (quite seriously) to get a pet prairie dog for company and hightail it out of the doom that seemed to be lying in wait for me as a mother.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Jun 2, 2010 13:21:19 GMT -5
Gosh, Tapati. I really wonder where the 'positive attitude' in the face of all that suffering is to come from? I remember reading stuff like this from mothers in my church, who were similarly sold on the 'everything natural' line, and thinking 'there is one sure way to escape all that misery - not having kids!' It was around this time that I decided my calling in life was to be a truck driver. I was planning (quite seriously) to get a pet prairie dog for company and hightail it out of the doom that seemed to be lying in wait for me as a mother. Now I realize that childbearing is not for everyone. However, my view that if one must do something, cultivating a positive attitude is better than fighting it kicking and screaming still holds. We can't control everything that life brings but we do have a lot of control over how we respond. I'm still glad I chose natural childbirth.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Jun 2, 2010 14:09:31 GMT -5
Now I realize that childbearing is not for everyone. However, my view that if one must do something, cultivating a positive attitude is better than fighting it kicking and screaming still holds. We can't control everything that life brings but we do have a lot of control over how we respond. I'm still glad I chose natural childbirth. I should clarify that I wasn't trying to 'pick on' natural childbirth or imply that you should have done differently. I think medicine does crudely overstep its bounds in many cases and it's often healthier to do without much intervention. When I mentioned the 'everything natural line', I was referring to the prairie muffin doctrine of refusing all modern assistance as a lifestyle: no store-bought bread, no vaccinations, all that. I have spent many years tormenting myself over the childbirth issue. There is no part of me that wants anything parenthood entails, and yet I can't escape thinking about it. I can't help feeling I have no choice but to give birth someday. It all looks like unabated misery to me, but I feel like I am being shoved into it by an unseen force.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Jun 2, 2010 14:54:35 GMT -5
Both of my babies were born in a hospital, by C-section. They came out perfect and pink, scoring 9s on the APGAR scale. I nursed them almost immediately after they were born in the hospital, kept them in my bed/room at first, demand fed them, never let them cry it out, nurtured every interest they even poked at growing up, and home schooled them with an eye on making their dreams come true. I also used disposable diapers, store-bought baby food, and we do not eat all natural, organic food even today. But we're doing okay. =) It has always surprised me how self-righteous natural childbirth proponents were (Sorry tapati! I know that was your 22 yr old self!) Both of my children were breech, and it seemed completely selfish to me to insist on a vaginal birth when it ran the risk of brain trauma to my child! Even if the risk was small, it was unacceptable to me as a mother to run that risk just so I could have the bragging rights of a natural birth. But I had my own issues to be self-righteous about. I too was sure that people who bottle-fed and/or used schedules or- heaven forbid- daycare! just didn't love their children like I loved mine. What a bunch of hooey. I have since learned at my ripe old age of 47, that whatever works for your family is the right thing for your family. Bottle fed babies grow up just as healthy, and apparently the daycare kids have made it okay too. Ah, the self-importance of the young! And I was right in the thick of it, too.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Jun 2, 2010 15:38:03 GMT -5
Yes I was shocked at how judgmental I was. I had been heavily indoctrinated by Immaculate Deception in the dangers of hospital births. They also weren't as good about allowing babies to stay in the rooms back then. I think, really, that the homebirth movement helped create the positive changes you see today--they were losing our business.
I suspect that when we are young and just learning and feeling insecure, we have to bolster our self confidence with this judgmental attitude to reassure ourselves we made the right choices.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Jun 2, 2010 15:41:55 GMT -5
I should clarify that I wasn't trying to 'pick on' natural childbirth or imply that you should have done differently. I think medicine does crudely overstep its bounds in many cases and it's often healthier to do without much intervention. When I mentioned the 'everything natural line', I was referring to the prairie muffin doctrine of refusing all modern assistance as a lifestyle: no store-bought bread, no vaccinations, all that. I have spent many years tormenting myself over the childbirth issue. There is no part of me that wants anything parenthood entails, and yet I can't escape thinking about it. I can't help feeling I have no choice but to give birth someday. It all looks like unabated misery to me, but I feel like I am being shoved into it by an unseen force. I had to fight my ex over some of the issues you describe--seeing doctors, vaccinations and so on. I do not believe that you have some destiny to have children against your will. There are great online groups (I hear) for people who don't want to have children and feel like they need support in the face of a heavily pro-childbearing society. You are not alone. I will say that I don't look back and perceive unabated misery, but perhaps that's because I wanted children and enjoyed some aspects of raising them immensely. That helped balance out the difficult jobs. Everything has its sacrifices. I worked my ass off in college, too, and the payoff was the degree but also the joy of learning new things. This is YOUR life and you get to make the choices.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Jun 2, 2010 18:12:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Jun 2, 2010 18:19:37 GMT -5
Thanks, Tapati. I have read a lot of CF literature before, but it hasn't been enough to rid me of the guilt and fear surrounding the issue. Two of my friends are openly CF, too. You'd think I'd be at peace with the idea.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Jun 2, 2010 18:21:22 GMT -5
It takes time to shake off the conditioning and be fully confident in your own choices. Give yourself that time. {{{hugs}}}
|
|
|
Post by Ex-Adriel on Jun 2, 2010 18:51:38 GMT -5
Thanks, Tapati. I have read a lot of CF literature before, but it hasn't been enough to rid me of the guilt and fear surrounding the issue. Two of my friends are openly CF, too. You'd think I'd be at peace with the idea. I don't know if you are anti-preggers, or anti-having-kids-at-all. I can sympathize with both views - in my considered opinion, I had my kids (two brothers) starting when I was seven, and my motherly duty is over already. However, as I get older, and slightly less traumatized by my past, I sometimes think having little brats may not be as totally horrible as I remember it being. However, one thing I am totally not in the running for is pregnancy. It isn't in the cards AT ALL. I just figured I'd never have kids. My husband isn't interested in adoption, and so I thought - ok, there's that decided then! But, you can actually pay someone else to have your own child for you! It's called surrogacy, and it's used for people who are infertile, have hormonal problems, or otherwise can't give birth themselves. It's an awesome idea. So I've been saving money for a surrogate if my husband and I decide we want to further the species eventually. It's legal pretty much anywhere in the USA, and you can go different genetic routes with it (yours and your husband's genes, his and the surrogate's, donor egg, donor sperm, mix and match). It makes me feel a lot more comfortable with the idea of eventually having kids, taking that whole pregnancy and delivery aspect away from it. /soapbox now...
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 2, 2010 19:50:02 GMT -5
So I've been saving money for a surrogate if my husband and I decide we want to further the species eventually. It's legal pretty much anywhere in the USA, and you can go different genetic routes with it (yours and your husband's genes, his and the surrogate's, donor egg, donor sperm, mix and match). It makes me feel a lot more comfortable with the idea of eventually having kids, taking that whole pregnancy and delivery aspect away from it. I would just encourage anyone who is reading to read a lot about this option before committing to do it. It's not necessarily as simple as this explanation could make it seem. There are a whole host of class issues involved, and it can be really, really exploitative for the women (often members of the working poor) who choose to do it. I mean, yeah, there is choice involved, but... So, I've also read testimonies from women who found separation from the fetus they'd carried for nine months very traumatic. And I've read enough about how a lot of surrogacy organizations work to know that some are really corrupt--and badly mistreat the women who take on these pregnancies. I am sure that it can probably be done in a way that is above-board, but I just wanted to suggest--in case you didn't know--that it's not usually as simple as it sounds. And it's important to interview agencies--and have enough contact with the surrogate--to know that it's something you can live with. That said, I totally understand the feeling that pregnancy isn't an option... I never felt I could do it myself--and then learned last year that I have a septate uterus that probably means it isn't possible anyway... But I never experienced the kind of profound guilt that so many of you are talking about here. I do feel a kind of loss knowing that it's not really an option, but anyway...
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 2, 2010 23:20:03 GMT -5
Quoting Tapati: Amazing the amount of misinformation you were under; post-natal depression is not related to whether or not a woman uses anesthesia, nor does anethesia result in "blue and gasping" babies-- as I'm sure you are aware now. But it's so sad when this kind of thing gets spread around to make women feel guilty for using anesthesia. Bearing up under suffering that can't be helped is courageous; feeling that you must bear suffering that could be avoided is guilt-manipulation. To Sierra: I feel for you, and believe that as you continue to let yourself heal, the reasons you feel as you do will come to you, so that you can re-reason yourself out of these kinds of thought patterns. For instance (to counter a message you grew up learning), you don't have to have a baby to be complete as a woman. You can choose to recognize the old message as a lie and actively resist it by giving yourself a new message. "I am complete as a woman right here, right now, just by being who I am" or something along those lines, might be helpful to tell yourself in front of the mirror every night.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Jun 3, 2010 1:38:45 GMT -5
It just occurred to me why Tapati's old letter seemed so incredibly doom and gloom to me, and it might be worth sharing. In my church, the emphasis on home birth without medical intervention was not to secure the best interests of the baby or the mother. It was because of Eve's curse (pain in childbearing). Medical interventions (especially epidurals) were frowned upon because they enabled women to avoid the curse, which was somehow against God's will. God wanted women to suffer in childbirth, and they were defying him by trying to make it less painful! Add in the doctrine that women must have children in order to be real Christians, and you get: 'God wants women to suffer because they are women'. Yeah. Re: surrogacy - I have read about it, including some of the issues km mentions. I think in principle it can work and have considered it myself, provided the agency is reputable and the surrogate is not acting in that capacity out of desperation. It is a tricky subject, and I feel that much of the stigma comes back to the cultural idea that motherhood is a badge awarded to she who suffers most. For my own case, I'd be worried that my child would grow up and insist that I was not his or her 'real mother' because I hadn't given birth, because of that cultural idea. Then again, one of my deepest fears is raising someone who hates me. In fact, I'm pretty sure that it's inevitable that my child would grow up to become a fundie, and I really can't live with that. Parenthood is too scary for me. I can't promise to unconditionally love someone who might turn out to hate everything I stand for. I'm not that big, so I won't play the game. ETA: Thank you, KR, for the kind words. I will give your suggestion a try.
|
|
|
Post by pandapaws on Jun 3, 2010 6:02:57 GMT -5
I also have found natural childbirth proponents to be very self righteous. I felt like a failure right before I needed my c-section and asking for pain relief. I was sold on it (Natural chidlbirth) before I had my daughter, now I feel you just do what you gotta do to birth the baby safely and if you need pain relief it's nobody else's damn business. Nobody sees glory in getting a tooth pulled without anesthesia.
I am not against natural childbirth of course but I don't think women should be looked down upon for choosing pain relief, either.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Jun 3, 2010 8:23:04 GMT -5
Quoting Tapati: Amazing the amount of misinformation you were under; post-natal depression is not related to whether or not a woman uses anesthesia, nor does anethesia result in "blue and gasping" babies-- as I'm sure you are aware now. But it's so sad when this kind of thing gets spread around to make women feel guilty for using anesthesia. Bearing up under suffering that can't be helped is courageous; feeling that you must bear suffering that could be avoided is guilt-manipulation. The state of our knowledge had changed in the intervening years, especially regarding post natal (and other types of ) depression. But the anesthesia most in use in the 70s when I had my kids was Scopolamine and it did have nasty side effects, especially for the baby. I'm glad that pain management during labor is much better now and not dangerous for the child. www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=10226
|
|
|
Post by Ex-Adriel on Jun 3, 2010 8:36:55 GMT -5
So I've been saving money for a surrogate if my husband and I decide we want to further the species eventually. It's legal pretty much anywhere in the USA, and you can go different genetic routes with it (yours and your husband's genes, his and the surrogate's, donor egg, donor sperm, mix and match). It makes me feel a lot more comfortable with the idea of eventually having kids, taking that whole pregnancy and delivery aspect away from it. I would just encourage anyone who is reading to read a lot about this option before committing to do it. It's not necessarily as simple as this explanation could make it seem. There are a whole host of class issues involved, and it can be really, really exploitative for the women (often members of the working poor) who choose to do it. I mean, yeah, there is choice involved, but... So, I've also read testimonies from women who found separation from the fetus they'd carried for nine months very traumatic. And I've read enough about how a lot of surrogacy organizations work to know that some are really corrupt--and badly mistreat the women who take on these pregnancies. I am sure that it can probably be done in a way that is above-board, but I just wanted to suggest--in case you didn't know--that it's not usually as simple as it sounds. And it's important to interview agencies--and have enough contact with the surrogate--to know that it's something you can live with. That said, I totally understand the feeling that pregnancy isn't an option... I never felt I could do it myself--and then learned last year that I have a septate uterus that probably means it isn't possible anyway... But I never experienced the kind of profound guilt that so many of you are talking about here. I do feel a kind of loss knowing that it's not really an option, but anyway... quoted for emphasis. However, there's a growing movement (in the USA at least) for surrogates to be family members or friends or community members - more of an organ-donor feeling rather than finding some poor woman in India who has to time-share her womb to feed her family. I think that's much more responsible, and like you said - I wouldn't want something I decided on to exploit some other woman. It is a lot of work, and it is complicated, but it is also possible - and that's something I didn't know before, and it makes a great deal of difference in opening up another potential future - one I didn't think I would be able to participate in at all.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 3, 2010 9:01:15 GMT -5
It just occurred to me why Tapati's old letter seemed so incredibly doom and gloom to me, and it might be worth sharing. In my church, the emphasis on home birth without medical intervention was not to secure the best interests of the baby or the mother. It was because of Eve's curse (pain in childbearing). Medical interventions (especially epidurals) were frowned upon because they enabled women to avoid the curse, which was somehow against God's will. God wanted women to suffer in childbirth, and they were defying him by trying to make it less painful! Oh, wow... The doctrinal beliefs that you share from your experiences in Brahnhamism always sound so harsh to me. I mean, QF/P ideology is notorious for its patriarchal teachings in the first place, but Brahnham honestly sounds like someone who truly hated and despised women. And I don't mean to trivialize other QF movements, which I know have disastrous consequences in themselves. It's just that the stuff you bring out from Brahnhamism is always new for me, not something I'd ever heard from other QF luminaries. As if, well, instead of becoming, say, Ted Bundy, he channeled his hatred into amassing disciples willing to follow the most woman-hating interpretation of the Bible that was ever possible... I mean, I know that QF doctrine is sexist in the first place, but your religious training always strikes me as spectacularly cruel in ways that I hadn't heard about. Even in the days when my parents were fundies, I was always taught that Eve's childbirth story was a mythical explanation for women's pain in childbearing, not unlike other ancient myths that were used to explain natural phenomena when scientific explanations were not avaialable. Even when I got sucked into some of the most cruel aspects of QF, I never heard childbirth discussed as any kind of "natural" punishment for women. I would be curious to know whether or not others ever heard this teaching in non-Brahnham QF cults?
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 3, 2010 9:07:16 GMT -5
Oh, the 'woman must have pain in childbirth' doctrines were a widely held belief over time and caused quite a ruckus when doctors first started using pain relief during childbirth. Religious leaders, both Catholic and Protestant, objected to pain relief during the early days. Branham held onto the belief and preached it later than most is all, which is why it is so startling.
|
|
|
Post by cereselle on Jun 3, 2010 11:24:24 GMT -5
Medical interventions (especially epidurals) were frowned upon because they enabled women to avoid the curse, which was somehow against God's will. God wanted women to suffer in childbirth, and they were defying him by trying to make it less painful! And I'm sure these men all worked out in the fields to grow the food they ate, without benefit of tools, right? Cause that was Adam's curse, and... Eh, you know the rest.
|
|
em
Full Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by em on Jun 3, 2010 12:08:31 GMT -5
Oh, Sierra. I am right there with you on the not wanting kids thing. Some people just shouldn't be parents. With everyone sharing their stories here, I think we've all seen some proof of that, of fathers who abandom their kids, mothers who are cruelly abusive, etc. etc. I honestly believe I am one of those people. Not that I would ever abandon or abuse any kids I'd have, but I just don't feel like I could be a parent. I too have the fear that my kids would turn out to be exactly what I hate. I have some pretty severe issues from my sister, and if my kid turned out to be the same kind of lazy, entitled, self absorbed, cruel, lying drug addict who blames everybody else for their problems I just don't think I'd be able to love the kid. I've been burned way too badly to ever be able to put up with that again or deal with it, like how you feel about fundamentalism. And then I'd feel bad because you're supposed to. And yeah. If it makes you feel any better, I could not agree with you more about not having kids.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 3, 2010 18:35:54 GMT -5
Medical interventions (especially epidurals) were frowned upon because they enabled women to avoid the curse, which was somehow against God's will. God wanted women to suffer in childbirth, and they were defying him by trying to make it less painful! And I'm sure these men all worked out in the fields to grow the food they ate, without benefit of tools, right? Cause that was Adam's curse, and... Eh, you know the rest. Yes, the rank hypocrisy is outrageous. Men could do anything they liked to remove weeds and thorns from their crops, but women were supposed to just submit to pain in childbirth. Disgusting. Sierra, are Branhamites mostly agricultural? Do they allow the use of weedkillers, fertilizers, harrowers and the like?
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 3, 2010 18:39:42 GMT -5
And I'm sure these men all worked out in the fields to grow the food they ate, without benefit of tools, right? Cause that was Adam's curse, and... Eh, you know the rest. Yes, the rank hypocrisy is outrageous. Men could do anything they liked to remove weeds and thorns from their crops, but women were supposed to just submit to pain in childbirth. Disgusting. Sierra, are Branhamites mostly agricultural? Do they allow the use of weedkillers, fertilizers, harrowers and the like? oh here's another one, it *CLEARLY* says, "by the sweat of their brow." So how many corporate offices do YOU know that are un air-conditioned?
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 3, 2010 19:01:30 GMT -5
Quoting Tapati: Amazing the amount of misinformation you were under; post-natal depression is not related to whether or not a woman uses anesthesia, nor does anethesia result in "blue and gasping" babies-- as I'm sure you are aware now. But it's so sad when this kind of thing gets spread around to make women feel guilty for using anesthesia. Bearing up under suffering that can't be helped is courageous; feeling that you must bear suffering that could be avoided is guilt-manipulation. The state of our knowledge had changed in the intervening years, especially regarding post natal (and other types of ) depression. But the anesthesia most in use in the 70s when I had my kids was Scopolamine and it did have nasty side effects, especially for the baby. I'm glad that pain management during labor is much better now and not dangerous for the child. www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=10226Good grief, Tapati! They mixed morphine and one of the components of belladonna to give to women in childbirth?! I really didn't know. How horrible! It just goes to show how far anesthesiology progressed in the 20 years between then, and when I gave birth. I guess my anesthesiologist was probably worth the astronomical fee he charged. Anyway, it sounds like you were better informed than I thought. I hope I didn't give offense; sorry!
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Jun 4, 2010 9:10:28 GMT -5
The state of our knowledge had changed in the intervening years, especially regarding post natal (and other types of ) depression. But the anesthesia most in use in the 70s when I had my kids was Scopolamine and it did have nasty side effects, especially for the baby. I'm glad that pain management during labor is much better now and not dangerous for the child. www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=10226Good grief, Tapati! They mixed morphine and one of the components of belladonna to give to women in childbirth?! I really didn't know. How horrible! It just goes to show how far anesthesiology progressed in the 20 years between then, and when I gave birth. I guess my anesthesiologist was probably worth the astronomical fee he charged. Anyway, it sounds like you were better informed than I thought. I hope I didn't give offense; sorry! Epidurals were a new procedure gradually gaining ground at that time. Many women, though, had been indoctrinated to want to be "out" for childbirth and not know about any pain, so twilight sleep was still in vogue. I guess that also fed into keeping the baby in the nursery after the birth since the mom would be so groggy she might drop the baby! I remember a vivid description in Immaculate Deception about women who still screamed and moaned with pain but they didn't remember the pain later so they were satisfied that they'd had a pain free birth. The scopolamine caused them to forget! Medicine makes so much progress it's hard to remember back to the 70s and realize how primitive some things were by our current standards. But my judgmental attitude was inexcusable.
|
|