Birth? Really?
(Due to technical difficulties, I could not upload a thumbnail of the image. Therefore, you'll have to view the article to see it.)
This month's issue of Smithsonian had an article about this birth photograph by Wayne F. Miller. It depicts the birth of his son, David Baker Miller, in 1948.
I'm not sure what bothers me more: the photograph, or that the article seems to unquestioningly accept this depiction as an iconic representation of birth.
The predominant element of the photograph is the doctor. Tall, gloved, masked, he projects an aura of detachment and control. The baby is the product, held indelicately upside down by one leg. Disembodied, rubber gloved hands hover in the foreground.
The mother is nowhere to be seen. Apparently, she is irrelevant to the picture's message. Life begins when you are heroically rescued from the inert, decently covered field that is your mother's womb.
I know, the photograph is an old one. It reflects the standard birthing practice in 1940s America. Which is why it bothers me more that an article about the photograph, written over sixty years later, does not question the imagery or the symbolism. This is still, as far as most people are concerned, what birth is all about? This is what was chosen to represent birth on the Voyager spacecrafts? (Nice work, Carl Sagan.)
This picture is of a birth. It is not Birth.
A truly representative image of birth would include one thing above all: the Birthing Mother. The baby may not even be visible yet, but the Birthing Mother is still Birthing. There may be attendants, there may not. The setting can be anywhere: a hospital, a bed, a bath, a field, a creekside. The mother's face may show bliss, or agony, or determination, or fear, or calm, and it's still Birth. It may be from 1948, or 2008, or 18,000 BCE. The doctor, the rubber gloves, the mask, the sheets; these things are not intrinsic to birth, nor are they important to birth.
I think you can type "birth," or better yet, "homebirth" in Google image search and get thousands of images that are better representative of birth, and far less disturbingly cold, science-fiction flavored, and misogynistic than this one.
That this occurred to no one else before the article ran is a sad mystery to me.
This month's issue of Smithsonian had an article about this birth photograph by Wayne F. Miller. It depicts the birth of his son, David Baker Miller, in 1948.
I'm not sure what bothers me more: the photograph, or that the article seems to unquestioningly accept this depiction as an iconic representation of birth.
The predominant element of the photograph is the doctor. Tall, gloved, masked, he projects an aura of detachment and control. The baby is the product, held indelicately upside down by one leg. Disembodied, rubber gloved hands hover in the foreground.
The mother is nowhere to be seen. Apparently, she is irrelevant to the picture's message. Life begins when you are heroically rescued from the inert, decently covered field that is your mother's womb.
I know, the photograph is an old one. It reflects the standard birthing practice in 1940s America. Which is why it bothers me more that an article about the photograph, written over sixty years later, does not question the imagery or the symbolism. This is still, as far as most people are concerned, what birth is all about? This is what was chosen to represent birth on the Voyager spacecrafts? (Nice work, Carl Sagan.)
This picture is of a birth. It is not Birth.
A truly representative image of birth would include one thing above all: the Birthing Mother. The baby may not even be visible yet, but the Birthing Mother is still Birthing. There may be attendants, there may not. The setting can be anywhere: a hospital, a bed, a bath, a field, a creekside. The mother's face may show bliss, or agony, or determination, or fear, or calm, and it's still Birth. It may be from 1948, or 2008, or 18,000 BCE. The doctor, the rubber gloves, the mask, the sheets; these things are not intrinsic to birth, nor are they important to birth.
I think you can type "birth," or better yet, "homebirth" in Google image search and get thousands of images that are better representative of birth, and far less disturbingly cold, science-fiction flavored, and misogynistic than this one.
That this occurred to no one else before the article ran is a sad mystery to me.
Labels: birth, birth is normal, medical commentary, rants, social commentary
posted by bizarrogirl at
5:41 AM
6 Comments:
My parents had this book (Family of Man) when I was growing up. I think most of the photographers featured are men - so it doesn't surprise in the least. UGH. I have an extra copy (I got my parents, and then I kept finding copies at thrift stores, and thought they'd be neat to share...) Some pictures are so like this - a man's perspective, which I never realized until years later.
I saw the most amazing vids of water births this weekend. What an amazing birthing experience. I wish... :D
WORD. A doctor friend of ours gave us a book called Birth without Violence, and there are pictures within of peaceful newborns and gentle births... and I am so glad I got it right with at least one of my kidlets.
This could have been Emma's birth, and that was only 13 years ago.
I was horrified, but my midwife was out of town and I was a first time mom. The next 3 births were homebirths.
Let me preface by saying that I agree with your analysis, Dawn -- that the tone of the article and the image accompanying it indicates that we have a way to go in changing attitudes regarding how children can and should be brought into the world. That being said, as someone who works in healthcare, this image is also representative of a broader attitude about health issues -- that discomfort is wrong, symptoms should be suppressed and that we know better than nature.
But, Elizabeth, I also believe that framing this image and article as somehow representative of "man's perspective" and therefore seemingly at the root of the problem is chauvinist and more evidence of what makes it difficult for men to join in the discussion. I remember when I attended a breast feeding class with my then pregnant wife and the other women in the class made it clear that I was not welcome... before I even had a chance to give them any other reason to other than the fact that I am a guy. The first step in changing this comes when you drop the sexism and welcome men into this discussion.
WildPsyD -
Whoa, me a feminist? :D
No, I think it *was* the perspective of men back when this book was published, the photos captured. I have a friend who recently witnessed the birth of her granddaughter (by her daughter) and saw midwives ignore, then berate and attempt to block him out of the blessed event. It was shocking - I understand what you are saying...
But - The whole of this book has an interesting feel to it. I'd be happy to send someone my extra.
Fair enough, Elizabeth. I would definitely agree that historically men were discouraged from participating in child rearing other than as a sperm donor and a cigar dispenser. No surprise that, along with that attitude, cultural artifacts would also reflect that bias.
And, thanks for sharing that story about another guy getting stonewalled when trying to break from the culture of dichotomous participation in child birth. Another story for you and any one else interested is that my father-in-law was able to participate in the birth of his first two children when the family lived in Milwaukee in the early 1960s. They moved to Buffalo, NY in 1967 and when my wife was born he had to fight tooth and nail to stay by his wife's side as hospital policy was that the father was not allowed in the OR!
So, a separate perspective is not necessarily what men wanted back then and certainly in some cases it is what was forced upon them.
Post a Comment
<< Home