Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-z2ts4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-10T21:33:06.584Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shame, Gender, Birth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Anne Drapkin Lyerly
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years, critics of modern obstetrics have cited technology as responsible for women's discontent regarding childbirth. In this essay, I investigate and pry apart the connection between the quality of childbirth experience and technology. After identifying three factors considered constitutive of a ‘good birth,’ I demonstrate how technology can either facilitate or hinder each, but how dominant strains of birthing practice that reinforce female shame (hospital-based obstetrics and midwifery) consistently undermine them all. It is not technology per se, but its sensitive application, which may most effectively promote an optimal and affirming birth experience.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 21 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Maternal Bodies , Winter 2006 , pp. 101 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 1999. Antepartum fetal surveillance. ACOG Practice Bulletin no. 9. Washington, D.C.: ACOG.Google Scholar
Baier, Annette. 1987. The need for more than justice. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 13 (supplement): 41–56.Google Scholar
Bartky, Sandra Lee. 1990. Femininity and domination. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Held, Virginia. 1989. Birth and death. Ethics 99, no. 2: 362–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duden, Barbara. 1993. Disembodying women: Perspectives on pregnancy and the unborn. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Frost, Kristy M. 2003. Outcomes of planned home births in Washington State: 1989‐‐1996 (letter). Obstetrics and Gynecology 101: 198.Google Scholar
Harris, Lisa H. 2000. Rethinking maternal‐fetal conflict: Gender and equality in perinatal ethics. Obstetrics and Gynecology 96: 786–91.Google ScholarPubMed
Jaggar, Alison M. 1989. Love and knowledge: Emotion in feminist epistemology. Inquiry 32: 151–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Kenneth C., and Daviss, Betty‐Anne. 2003. Outcomes of planned home births in Washington State: 1989‐‐1996 (letter). Obstetrics and Gynecology 101: 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolder, Veronica, Gallagher, Janet, and Parsons, Michael. 1987. Court‐ordered obstetrical interventions. New England Journal of Medicine 316: 1192–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Korte, Diana, and Scaer, Roberta. 1992. A good birth, a safe birth. 3rd ed. Boston: Harvard Common Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Lisa, and Georges, Eugenia. 1997. Cross‐cultural cyborgs: Greek and Canadian women's discourses on fetal ultrasound. Feminist Studies 23, no. 2: 373–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, Mary. 1983. The politics of reproduction. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Paltrow, Lynn M., Cohen, David S., and Carey, Corinne A. 2000. Year 2000 overview: Governmental responses to pregnant women who use alcohol or other drugs. New York: National Advocates for Pregnant Women.Google Scholar
Pang, Jenny Y. W., Heffelenger, James D., Huang, Greg J., Benedetti, Thomas J., and Weiss, Noel S. 2002. Outcomes of planned home births in Washington State: 1989‐‐1996. Obstetrics and Gynecology 100: 253–59.Google ScholarPubMed
Pollitt, Katha. 2004. Pregnant and dangerous. The Nation. April 26.Google Scholar
Rothman, Barbara Katz. 1991. In labor. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
Ruth, Sheila. 1990. The dynamics of patriarchy. In Issues in feminism. Mountain View, Calif.: Mayfield.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 1984. Pregnant embodiment: Subjectivity and alienation. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9: 45–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed