O'Rourke has a bit of the same problem as that guy who said that neither Atrios nor Eschaton was intellectual. She cites "a host of respected blogs" and then links to Crooked Timber and Belle Waring. Later she says that "[o]ne blog even shut down its discussion thread about the article," referring to... the Crooked Timber thread she originally linked. She didn't even get the other CT thread.
No, I mean it's a well-written piece that gives a hearing to the various perspectives in the discussion. (And I didn't think we'd come to a consensus in those threads.)
It's a decent piece, but I think she does gloss over some of the sexism inherent in the article (though not, perhaps, in the men) that Belle and the other bloggers were responding to; the idea that even learning about birth is taking away the sexual mystery (leaving as the only solution, I suppose, building a high wall around it) and, of course, that women should be the ones to bear this in mind.
And I think the piece seriously distorts what the CTers were saying. (As well as their characters--I mean, Belle and Kieran and Dsquared are massive snarkmeisters, not "usually temperate." Think of their posts as part of the genre in which tools are mocked.) For instance, Maria shut down her thread in part because she thought that Belle was being personally attacked, whereas O'Rourke cites narcissism only.
Since O'Rourke actually agrees that fathers ought to assist in the delivery room, and her complaint is that the host of blogs (N.B. this is "the highbrow--examining the cultural elite") were trying to shut down a conversation we need to have, it really is a major problem that she's not describing the conversation accurately.
I'd say those three are usually temperate, even when they're snarky; which is to say that they snark, but are still attentive to facts and arguments.
The "narcissism" thing is misleading, but only goes to how narcissistic Maria found the comments (ie, sufficient to close down comments?), not whether she found them so at all. So that seems like a minor issue.
I really don't think it's a minor issue. She's talking about short-circuiting a conversation--I really think that that's the main point of the piece. And she says that Maria shut down comments because the posters defending the men were narcissistic, when in fact Maria shut down the comments just after a poster called Belle an insecure asshole.
Maria closing the comments was only the most literal short-circuiting of discussion, not the sole example, so it's not as if the piece depends on a completely accurate recounting of that, and Maria herself did say that the narcissism of the commenters was *a* reason for closing the thread.
I guess it's tangential insofar as I'm not opposed to her main point--that we need a conversation. Let's have a conversation! I love conversation. (Though we may be all a bit tired of this one.) The NYTimes article, I think, got this conversation off to a bad start, but that's already been well gone over.
Okay. O'Rourke's piece is okay, but what's the difference between what she said and what Belle said? She still thinks the guy should be in the delivery room if the wife wants him there. She still thinks that putting his desire to not see anything gross ahead of being supportive is 'immature and selfish'. And presumably if he insists that he has to stay in the waiting room, O'Rourke is going to tear his head off. Which is what I took the substance of Belle's snarky post to be.
So.... what's the point of the article then? To explain that you can't demand that someone find you sexy? Fine, but I don't think anyone she linked to explicity said that, no matter what the commenters shrilled at Belle.
It is interesting that O'Rourke yelled at her friend for saying the same thing as the guys in the article. People aren't going to let their friends be shitheads.
The mention of painkillers and c-sections is interesting as well. Natural childbirth is stupid, but it don't think it has much to do with whether the husband should be there. I see the husband's role as a complement to the painkillers.
It's the difference between saying, "I understand your problem, but you have to fulfill your obligations, then we'll discuss it," and "boo fucking hoo."
Presumably, tearing someone's head off in the context of friendship doesn't come off in same way that saying "boo fucking hoo" as a general statement of principle does.
Presumably, tearing someone's head off in the context of friendship doesn't come off in same way that saying "boo fucking hoo" as a general statement of principle does.
I don't get this as an objection -- that the tone of the conversation was overly harsh. I don't know of a reason for moderating one's tone, rather than the substance of one's remarks, other than to avoid hurting someone's feelings or making continued conversation with them difficult. Whose feelings are we worried about here -- men who can't function sexually after seeing their wives in childbirth? I'm not convinced that these guys exist, and I really don't see why I should be more worried about their feelings in the context of a blog discussion than about, say, Tom Cruise's (whose feelings, to be clear, I don't worry about.)
This whole thing is a tempest in search of a teapot. We all (IIRC) agreed that the norm should be that men should be in the delivery room (if wanted), and that an unwillingness to do that is evidence that the man in question is a dick. I think there was a general consensus that this was rebuttable. Presumably, if a woman is having a kid with a man, she has access to further evidence. So she's in a pretty good position to determine if his unwillingness to be in the delivery room is an unfortunate quirk or just part and parcel of his general dickishness. If it's dickishness, she's probably in a position to estimate how much of a jerk he is and take appropriate action. Is there any disagreement about this? And if not, what's left to argue about?
The real clod of the piece is the Times for running it.
It's the difference between saying, "I understand your problem, but you have to fulfill your obligations, then we'll discuss it," and "boo fucking hoo."
Except that the end result for O'Rourke is still, if you don't get over it, boo-fucking-hoo. Talk about 'the language of eroticism' aside, O'Rourke isn't seriously suggesting that the man's sexual needs be placed ahead of the woman's needs; and I don't think she's going so far as to say that having a feeling means that that feeling is beyond reproach.
So she pats the man on the hand first and says, 'there, there' and then tells him 'boo-fucking-hoo'. Belle skipped straight to the 'boo-fucking-hoo' part, motivated by the tone of the article, I imagine.
Which is a significant style difference, but I didn't think this whole debate was about how nicely we should present objections to NYT fluff pieces.
What SMCT meant (I believe) by the 'rebuttable' in the following sentence was that while such a man could be presumed to be a dick, that presumption could be rebutted if he had a good reason for his reluctance (such as awareness of an unusual inability to handle gross stuff.) Does that reconcile you with his position?
That's how I understood it. I think he was making an epistemic point--if all you know is that he won't attend to the delivery, you have reason to think he's a dick, but if you know something more (like that his hoo-hoo dilly would never work again if he saw birth being given) then you might know that he wasn't a dick. And SCMT was saying that the woman giving birth probably is in a position to know whether he's being a dick or not.
On the one hand, I think she's doing the "Now, both sides have some good points, the issue is really complicated, we should respect everyone" schtick that, while I love using it myself at any and all opportunity, ultimately seems something of the easy way out. But I think there's something to her dragging up the phrase "socialize sexual desire". Yeah, some of the men getting boo-hooed may not deserve it, it's just some neurosis that's not his fault. But surely the culture view of this plays a hand in the development of both the dickish and neurotic men, no? So sure, you deserve some sympathy if you can't get it up now and are in therapy now trying to fix it, but in the long run, isn't the boo-hooing good for us?
Incidentally, I don't think I have much sympathy for the preemptive "I think I might be too squeamish for this." If it unexpectedly happens, hey. But knowing/expecting you'll have problems?
So sure, you deserve some sympathy if you can't get it up now and are in therapy now trying to fix it, but in the long run, isn't the boo-hooing good for us?
Heartless though it is, this is sort of my feeling. What is too disgusting to be borne is very strongly affected by society -- look at food preferences, where all sorts of perfectly normal foods in one culture are horrific in another. I would much rather live in a society where it is a common expectation that witnessing childbirth isn't going to hurt you or your libido, and I do think this is an area where establishing a societal expectation will affect people's individual experiences.
Incidentally, I don't think I have much sympathy for the preemptive "I think I might be too squeamish for this." If it unexpectedly happens, hey. But knowing/expecting you'll have problems?
Here, I think you're a little too harsh. Someone who can truly say something like "I faint at the sight of blood, and I had nightmares for weeks after seeing a friend wipe out on his bike and scape himself up; please don't ask me to be in the room when you give birth," has some unusual problems, but isn't necessarily a bad guy.
I would much rather live in a society where it is a common expectation that witnessing childbirth isn't going to hurt you or your libido, and I do think this is an area where establishing a societal expectation will affect people's individual experiences.
But, I think, this is already the case. Unless the number of people described by the Times article is much greater than anticipated, the existence of those people is not going to do much to change society's general default position on this.
Moreover, I suspect that ogged is correct: in most of these case, the man is seizing on this, consciously or not, as a way of explaining away his general disinterest in his wife (a phenomenon that, I think, is not uncommon for many spouses).
I think you're right. Instead of saying 'establishing a societal expectation' I should have said 'maintaining the current societal expectation'. What made me cranky and hostile about the original Times article was that I perceived it as tending to erode that expectation, and setting up a counter-expectation that witnessing childbirth may render your cock useless -- consider yourself warned!
Here, I think you're a little too harsh. Someone who can truly say something like "I faint at the sight of blood, and I had nightmares for weeks after seeing a friend wipe out on his bike and scape himself up; please don't ask me to be in the room when you give birth," has some unusual problems, but isn't necessarily a bad guy.
Maybe you're right, but I struggle with this in the same way that I struggle not to give a hard time to the friend that freaks out upon seeing a snake on TV or protests too loudly about the bee interested in their lunch. I do have sympathy, as I certainly have my own irrational anxieties, but I'd hate to see them influence my life so profoundly. And while annoying, a often find a certain amount of badgering about those anxieties productive and helpful. I'd think that the amount of ickiness reluctance that could be overcome by a little badgering would be much larger than the amount leading to Catastrophic Cock Failure. I suppose this doesn't get me out of admitting that maybe you can legitmately know you'll suffer from CCF. But if so, get help, and don't whine too much about the people who tried to tell you it shouldn't be such a big deal.
Given that I'm completely talking myself in circles, I will shut-up before I get dizzy and have to throw-up.
For those of you who aren't sure whether this phenomenon is mostly just something the Times reporter made up, I can tell you that it has been "common knowledge" in Japan for quite a while. (Though I don't know whether it's a widespread phenomenon in America or not.)
When my daughter was born 3 years ago, my wife, having been warned by her doctor, was worried about it and asked me if I was sure I wanted to be there, since many men lose interest in sex after seeing birth. My reaction was of course, "What kind of guy would lose interest in his wife because of childbirth. Of course I'm going to be there with you."
The doctors and nurses were also aware of this and cautioned me to stay by her head and not look at where the action was taking place. When the husband isn't present, they put a mirror between the mother's legs so she can see the head coming out, but they don't do this when the father is there because they believe it will freak him out. I ignored them, looked when I wanted to look, and insisted they get out the mirror so my wife could see it too. It really pissed me off that they were more worried about the father's delicate sensibilities than with the woman's experience of giving birth.
The birth itself was a wonderful bonding experience, but all that nonsense seriously put me off Japanese hospitals. We've decided that our second child, due January, is going to be born in our home so we can avoid the bullshit.
For heaven's sake; why do you think we have the expression "don't be such a big girl's blouse" in our language if not for cases like this? Surely it's more patronising to stand around saying "hmmm it's a perfectly normal and natural phenomenon and so we're going to pretend that you're not being a complete wuss, la di da, would you like a scented handkerchief and I'm sure that you a really really brave when it comes to extreme sports or something". Surely better to say something like "well, it's your choice and maybe you're not actually a bad person but mate, lame".
As I remember, Shulamith Firestone was the harshest of the radical feminists of the Seventies, the one that other feminists had to distance themselves from. But she's a distant memory. I always thought her name was super-cool, almost superhero-ish.
Do the Koufax awards have a Best Assist category, going to a blogger/commenter team? Because I think Belle and dsquared are strong contenders on this issue, if the category exists.
O'Rourke has a bit of the same problem as that guy who said that neither Atrios nor Eschaton was intellectual. She cites "a host of respected blogs" and then links to Crooked Timber and Belle Waring. Later she says that "[o]ne blog even shut down its discussion thread about the article," referring to... the Crooked Timber thread she originally linked. She didn't even get the other CT thread.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 9:45 AM
Hm, the ad at the top is Tulane advertising the online MBA.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 9:46 AM
I think it's safe to call that a tangential issue.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 9:47 AM
Since when did that matter here?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 9:48 AM
Well, as the first comment, it seemed a bit dismissive of what's a really good piece.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 9:50 AM
Sigh. Someday I'll be quoted somewhere. She does a good job with the space she is given, and she doesn't villify anyone, which is good in this case.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 9:52 AM
And by "good piece," you mean she agrees with you. I'm not sure how it's different than the rough consensus worked out in the prior thread.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 10:00 AM
No, I mean it's a well-written piece that gives a hearing to the various perspectives in the discussion. (And I didn't think we'd come to a consensus in those threads.)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 10:02 AM
It's a decent piece, but I think she does gloss over some of the sexism inherent in the article (though not, perhaps, in the men) that Belle and the other bloggers were responding to; the idea that even learning about birth is taking away the sexual mystery (leaving as the only solution, I suppose, building a high wall around it) and, of course, that women should be the ones to bear this in mind.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 10:03 AM
I plead this.
And I think the piece seriously distorts what the CTers were saying. (As well as their characters--I mean, Belle and Kieran and Dsquared are massive snarkmeisters, not "usually temperate." Think of their posts as part of the genre in which tools are mocked.) For instance, Maria shut down her thread in part because she thought that Belle was being personally attacked, whereas O'Rourke cites narcissism only.
Since O'Rourke actually agrees that fathers ought to assist in the delivery room, and her complaint is that the host of blogs (N.B. this is "the highbrow--examining the cultural elite") were trying to shut down a conversation we need to have, it really is a major problem that she's not describing the conversation accurately.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 10:03 AM
I'd say those three are usually temperate, even when they're snarky; which is to say that they snark, but are still attentive to facts and arguments.
The "narcissism" thing is misleading, but only goes to how narcissistic Maria found the comments (ie, sufficient to close down comments?), not whether she found them so at all. So that seems like a minor issue.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 10:10 AM
I really don't think it's a minor issue. She's talking about short-circuiting a conversation--I really think that that's the main point of the piece. And she says that Maria shut down comments because the posters defending the men were narcissistic, when in fact Maria shut down the comments just after a poster called Belle an insecure asshole.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 10:18 AM
Maria closing the comments was only the most literal short-circuiting of discussion, not the sole example, so it's not as if the piece depends on a completely accurate recounting of that, and Maria herself did say that the narcissism of the commenters was *a* reason for closing the thread.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 10:27 AM
I guess it's tangential insofar as I'm not opposed to her main point--that we need a conversation. Let's have a conversation! I love conversation. (Though we may be all a bit tired of this one.) The NYTimes article, I think, got this conversation off to a bad start, but that's already been well gone over.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 10:30 AM
Okay. O'Rourke's piece is okay, but what's the difference between what she said and what Belle said? She still thinks the guy should be in the delivery room if the wife wants him there. She still thinks that putting his desire to not see anything gross ahead of being supportive is 'immature and selfish'. And presumably if he insists that he has to stay in the waiting room, O'Rourke is going to tear his head off. Which is what I took the substance of Belle's snarky post to be.
So.... what's the point of the article then? To explain that you can't demand that someone find you sexy? Fine, but I don't think anyone she linked to explicity said that, no matter what the commenters shrilled at Belle.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 10:35 AM
I agree with Cala.
It is interesting that O'Rourke yelled at her friend for saying the same thing as the guys in the article. People aren't going to let their friends be shitheads.
The mention of painkillers and c-sections is interesting as well. Natural childbirth is stupid, but it don't think it has much to do with whether the husband should be there. I see the husband's role as a complement to the painkillers.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 11:02 AM
Shulamith Firestone was cited. Wow. A less-restrained version of Andrea Dworkin, IIRC.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 11:04 AM
It's the difference between saying, "I understand your problem, but you have to fulfill your obligations, then we'll discuss it," and "boo fucking hoo."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 11:09 AM
"tear his head off" sounds like "boo fucking hoo" to me.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 11:14 AM
Presumably, tearing someone's head off in the context of friendship doesn't come off in same way that saying "boo fucking hoo" as a general statement of principle does.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 11:26 AM
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 11:28 AM
Hmmm. When I had laproscopic knee surgery I was awake and had an epidural. Could I demand my wife attend that surgery to be supportive?
What if my wife caused the knee damage?
Oooh, oooh, how about my vasectomy? Could (or should) she be in the room for that?
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 11:54 AM
I'm so glad I'm going out now...
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 11:55 AM
Sure, Tripp, but bear in mind that once the inner mysteries of your knee have been exposed, she may not wish to kickbox with you anymore.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 12:30 PM
Oooh, oooh, how about my vasectomy?
What better way to demonstrate that there is a vas deferens between men and women?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 12:37 PM
Presumably, tearing someone's head off in the context of friendship doesn't come off in same way that saying "boo fucking hoo" as a general statement of principle does.
I don't get this as an objection -- that the tone of the conversation was overly harsh. I don't know of a reason for moderating one's tone, rather than the substance of one's remarks, other than to avoid hurting someone's feelings or making continued conversation with them difficult. Whose feelings are we worried about here -- men who can't function sexually after seeing their wives in childbirth? I'm not convinced that these guys exist, and I really don't see why I should be more worried about their feelings in the context of a blog discussion than about, say, Tom Cruise's (whose feelings, to be clear, I don't worry about.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 12:41 PM
This whole thing is a tempest in search of a teapot. We all (IIRC) agreed that the norm should be that men should be in the delivery room (if wanted), and that an unwillingness to do that is evidence that the man in question is a dick. I think there was a general consensus that this was rebuttable. Presumably, if a woman is having a kid with a man, she has access to further evidence. So she's in a pretty good position to determine if his unwillingness to be in the delivery room is an unfortunate quirk or just part and parcel of his general dickishness. If it's dickishness, she's probably in a position to estimate how much of a jerk he is and take appropriate action. Is there any disagreement about this? And if not, what's left to argue about?
The real clod of the piece is the Times for running it.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 12:45 PM
It's the difference between saying, "I understand your problem, but you have to fulfill your obligations, then we'll discuss it," and "boo fucking hoo."
Except that the end result for O'Rourke is still, if you don't get over it, boo-fucking-hoo. Talk about 'the language of eroticism' aside, O'Rourke isn't seriously suggesting that the man's sexual needs be placed ahead of the woman's needs; and I don't think she's going so far as to say that having a feeling means that that feeling is beyond reproach.
So she pats the man on the hand first and says, 'there, there' and then tells him 'boo-fucking-hoo'. Belle skipped straight to the 'boo-fucking-hoo' part, motivated by the tone of the article, I imagine.
Which is a significant style difference, but I didn't think this whole debate was about how nicely we should present objections to NYT fluff pieces.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 1:03 PM
SCMT,
an unwillingness to (be in the delivery room) is evidence that the man in question is a dick.
I never agreed to that. His dickitude depends on why he is unwilling to be in the delivery room.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 1:32 PM
mcmc,
Sure, Tripp, but bear in mind that once the inner mysteries of your knee have been exposed, she may not wish to kickbox with you anymore.
Oh Conaire,
Now she knows which knee to target!
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 1:34 PM
What better way to demonstrate that there is a vas deferens between men and women?
Bravo!
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 1:37 PM
Re: 29
What SMCT meant (I believe) by the 'rebuttable' in the following sentence was that while such a man could be presumed to be a dick, that presumption could be rebutted if he had a good reason for his reluctance (such as awareness of an unusual inability to handle gross stuff.) Does that reconcile you with his position?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 1:50 PM
That's how I understood it. I think he was making an epistemic point--if all you know is that he won't attend to the delivery, you have reason to think he's a dick, but if you know something more (like that his hoo-hoo dilly would never work again if he saw birth being given) then you might know that he wasn't a dick. And SCMT was saying that the woman giving birth probably is in a position to know whether he's being a dick or not.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 2:09 PM
On the one hand, I think she's doing the "Now, both sides have some good points, the issue is really complicated, we should respect everyone" schtick that, while I love using it myself at any and all opportunity, ultimately seems something of the easy way out. But I think there's something to her dragging up the phrase "socialize sexual desire". Yeah, some of the men getting boo-hooed may not deserve it, it's just some neurosis that's not his fault. But surely the culture view of this plays a hand in the development of both the dickish and neurotic men, no? So sure, you deserve some sympathy if you can't get it up now and are in therapy now trying to fix it, but in the long run, isn't the boo-hooing good for us?
Incidentally, I don't think I have much sympathy for the preemptive "I think I might be too squeamish for this." If it unexpectedly happens, hey. But knowing/expecting you'll have problems?
Posted by Paul | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 3:07 PM
So sure, you deserve some sympathy if you can't get it up now and are in therapy now trying to fix it, but in the long run, isn't the boo-hooing good for us?
Heartless though it is, this is sort of my feeling. What is too disgusting to be borne is very strongly affected by society -- look at food preferences, where all sorts of perfectly normal foods in one culture are horrific in another. I would much rather live in a society where it is a common expectation that witnessing childbirth isn't going to hurt you or your libido, and I do think this is an area where establishing a societal expectation will affect people's individual experiences.
Incidentally, I don't think I have much sympathy for the preemptive "I think I might be too squeamish for this." If it unexpectedly happens, hey. But knowing/expecting you'll have problems?
Here, I think you're a little too harsh. Someone who can truly say something like "I faint at the sight of blood, and I had nightmares for weeks after seeing a friend wipe out on his bike and scape himself up; please don't ask me to be in the room when you give birth," has some unusual problems, but isn't necessarily a bad guy.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 3:40 PM
I would much rather live in a society where it is a common expectation that witnessing childbirth isn't going to hurt you or your libido, and I do think this is an area where establishing a societal expectation will affect people's individual experiences.
But, I think, this is already the case. Unless the number of people described by the Times article is much greater than anticipated, the existence of those people is not going to do much to change society's general default position on this.
Moreover, I suspect that ogged is correct: in most of these case, the man is seizing on this, consciously or not, as a way of explaining away his general disinterest in his wife (a phenomenon that, I think, is not uncommon for many spouses).
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 3:48 PM
I think you're right. Instead of saying 'establishing a societal expectation' I should have said 'maintaining the current societal expectation'. What made me cranky and hostile about the original Times article was that I perceived it as tending to erode that expectation, and setting up a counter-expectation that witnessing childbirth may render your cock useless -- consider yourself warned!
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 3:57 PM
Here, I think you're a little too harsh. Someone who can truly say something like "I faint at the sight of blood, and I had nightmares for weeks after seeing a friend wipe out on his bike and scape himself up; please don't ask me to be in the room when you give birth," has some unusual problems, but isn't necessarily a bad guy.
Maybe you're right, but I struggle with this in the same way that I struggle not to give a hard time to the friend that freaks out upon seeing a snake on TV or protests too loudly about the bee interested in their lunch. I do have sympathy, as I certainly have my own irrational anxieties, but I'd hate to see them influence my life so profoundly. And while annoying, a often find a certain amount of badgering about those anxieties productive and helpful. I'd think that the amount of ickiness reluctance that could be overcome by a little badgering would be much larger than the amount leading to Catastrophic Cock Failure. I suppose this doesn't get me out of admitting that maybe you can legitmately know you'll suffer from CCF. But if so, get help, and don't whine too much about the people who tried to tell you it shouldn't be such a big deal.
Given that I'm completely talking myself in circles, I will shut-up before I get dizzy and have to throw-up.
Posted by Paul | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 4:40 PM
For those of you who aren't sure whether this phenomenon is mostly just something the Times reporter made up, I can tell you that it has been "common knowledge" in Japan for quite a while. (Though I don't know whether it's a widespread phenomenon in America or not.)
When my daughter was born 3 years ago, my wife, having been warned by her doctor, was worried about it and asked me if I was sure I wanted to be there, since many men lose interest in sex after seeing birth. My reaction was of course, "What kind of guy would lose interest in his wife because of childbirth. Of course I'm going to be there with you."
The doctors and nurses were also aware of this and cautioned me to stay by her head and not look at where the action was taking place. When the husband isn't present, they put a mirror between the mother's legs so she can see the head coming out, but they don't do this when the father is there because they believe it will freak him out. I ignored them, looked when I wanted to look, and insisted they get out the mirror so my wife could see it too. It really pissed me off that they were more worried about the father's delicate sensibilities than with the woman's experience of giving birth.
The birth itself was a wonderful bonding experience, but all that nonsense seriously put me off Japanese hospitals. We've decided that our second child, due January, is going to be born in our home so we can avoid the bullshit.
Posted by Big Ben | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 6:38 PM
"Shulamith Firestone was cited. Wow. A less-restrained version of Andrea Dworkin, IIRC."
it's fair to say she was one of the more important radical feminist thinkers of the Sixties/Seventies.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 08-30-05 7:02 PM
For heaven's sake; why do you think we have the expression "don't be such a big girl's blouse" in our language if not for cases like this? Surely it's more patronising to stand around saying "hmmm it's a perfectly normal and natural phenomenon and so we're going to pretend that you're not being a complete wuss, la di da, would you like a scented handkerchief and I'm sure that you a really really brave when it comes to extreme sports or something". Surely better to say something like "well, it's your choice and maybe you're not actually a bad person but mate, lame".
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 08-31-05 2:48 AM
that's funny, because I think you were just pwned by belle in this post:
http://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2005/08/how_about_the_p.html
Posted by alameida | Link to this comment | 08-31-05 4:48 AM
For heaven's sake; why do you think we have the expression "don't be such a big girl's blouse" in our language if not for cases like this?
We have this phrase in our language?
Is being a big girl's blouse better or worse than being a little girl's blouse, or some other article of clothing of a girl of indeterminate size?
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 08-31-05 5:17 AM
From the original Scouse:
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-big3.htm
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 08-31-05 6:06 AM
As I remember, Shulamith Firestone was the harshest of the radical feminists of the Seventies, the one that other feminists had to distance themselves from. But she's a distant memory. I always thought her name was super-cool, almost superhero-ish.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 08-31-05 7:05 AM
Alameida's right. Pwned.
Also, for the rest of my days, I'd like to thank Belle for putting "Angelina Jolie going down on Scarlett Johansen" into my spank bank.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 08-31-05 7:18 AM
yeah, i had to stop typing for a while there myself.
Posted by belle waring | Link to this comment | 08-31-05 9:41 AM
Do the Koufax awards have a Best Assist category, going to a blogger/commenter team? Because I think Belle and dsquared are strong contenders on this issue, if the category exists.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-31-05 9:52 AM