08/12/2022
Repost It's no coincidence that the demise of midwifery and in the United States occurred simultaneously with the massive wave of industrialization we now often refer to as "Fordism" at the turn of the 20th C. At that time, the still-developing field of obstetrics gained legitimacy through multiple strategies; one, as I've discussed before, was anti-midwifery propaganda fueled by racism. Another, though, was the adoption of the values of industrialization; obstetrics sold as a mechanistic procedure that tools and technologies could manipulate and improve.
The history of in America reflects the persistence of this idea, and has consistently trended toward increased control by physicians and increased medicalization in an effort to make the process more perfect and efficient. The definition of “normal” has become narrower and narrower; the toleration of deviance from that "norm" lower and lower. "Failure to progress" is the number one reason for c-births performed in the U.S. today.
But how can physicians determine you've "failed to progress" in your labor when they don't actually know what a normal labor is? Most OBs haven't ever seen normal labor, and have no idea how long it should or shouldn't take because the evidence has never studied normal labor. The two studies on which our definitions of "failure to progress" are based were conducted on labors where a majority were augmented by pitocin, forceps, various forms of pain management, or a combination of all three: i.e. mechanistic, industrialized birth.
But time is not actually the enemy during birth and efficiency isn't the goal. In fact, time often solves most of the "problems" we perceive in birth by allowing the baby to do the work of birth for which they are responsible - something obstetrics routinely ignores.