|
recent posts
----------
Recycled
Kid Tunes
Something In the Air
Music & Motion
On Wheels
Oh And...
Side Effects
Musical Interlude
Ms. Olds Regrets
Inner Child vs. Voice of Reason
|
 |
You've got questions, she's got answers. Be among the first to read Elise Mac Adam's new etiquette guide.
Pre-order from:
- Simon & Schuster
- Amazon
- Barnes & Noble
Silent Katie
So Katie Holmes is knocked up and most of us are feeling sorry for her, not that she needs our pity, but I don't mind casting a few of my pearls in her direction.
Ink (or the Internet equivalent) is being spilled right and left over the possible ways this baby could have been conceived, why (or whether) la Holmes cast aside her no-sex-before marriage stance, and of course the nature of a Scientology approved birth which is painkiller-free and silent.
Scientology despises all medication while believing that the noise associated with childbirth will damage the baby. This is not a new concept or one unique to Scientology, by the way. The French doctor Frederick LeBoyer was a strong advocate of natural, quiet childbirth for the baby's sake and his book Birth Without Violence, published in 1975 outlines his theories.
At this point, I must confess that I wonder why it is so important to people to have rigid birth philosophies and by extension I wonder why so many of the most draconian of these were conceived of by men.
It isn't really of interest to me whether Ms. Holmes can have this natural quiet delivery, though it is good to want things, I suppose. But I am curious about why a woman would so embrace a religion or lifestyle philosophy that promises to leave her bereft of options, even small ones like choosing to grunt, at a moment when one needs choices most. So what if silence is possible? The question really isn't whether someone can deliver naturally without making a racket, but why such sadistic mandates seem like a good idea.
And when I say sadistic, I do not refer to pain of childbirth, rather the more existential problem of being told that your voice is toxic, that expressing your pain or fear or excitement will damage the psyche of your child. To preempt expression seems to create a channel for extreme loneliness and isolation. There is a remarkable book by Elaine Scarry called The Body in Pain: the Making and Unmaking of the World, which is (in large part) about pain in the context of torture and war. In it, she argues that pain itself is a destroyer of language and personality. I wonder how refusing to permit any expression of pain, even in the happy context of childbirth in some sense unmakes the person who might suffer less if she could permit herself a yelp or two.
This starlet isn't a real person as far as I'm concerned, and I'm certain that the world will never know the truth about whatever she chooses to do or winds up doing, which is good, since it's none of our business. But I do hope that impressionable types don't look at what she does or claims to do and presume that they are doing themselves or their children some sort of disservice by opening their mouths or even wanting and needing relief.
Postscript: On the subject of pain, there is a fascinating article by Jerome Groopman about reflex sympathetic dystrophy in the October 10th issue of the New Yorker. The article is not available online, but a Q&A with Groopman is. This has nothing to do with childbirth, where the pain involved is entirely different and serves a much different purpose.
posted by Elise at 9:13 AM
........................................................
........................................................
<< Home
........................................................
|
