Monday, 6 August 2007

Should men be present at the birth of their babies?

It's that Daily Mail/ Richard and Judy double whammy again of sexist debate. They had this journalist Tom Sykes on who after witnessing the birth of his first child decided not to be present at the second. Charming. She has to be there still, though, right? You know, for twelve, or twenty hours or so. Bad luck, love.
Firstly, I have no intention of having children. Secondly, if I did, I certainly would not let the man look at that side of the action. I've heard horror stories of people never having sex again as a result, so best not to tempt fate. But can't the man even be in the same room? You know, holding your hand, giving you moral support? Well? What century is this?
This guy said 'oh it's squishy and gory'. Oh, poor thing. Women have to have their fannies RIPPED OPEN. No shit it's gory. You only looked, you weren't on the receiving end, mate!
The idea that then man was there for the fun bit so should be there for the screamy bit was met with ridicule. Judy actually said a few words of sense then took them back. This guy was like, 'you want him to share the pain'. Too fucking right I do! I'd want him to hurt like hell. Why not?
The poor men are traumatised! Poor things. Honestly. It's bloody sickening. Thank God I never have to even contemplate this crap. People literally deserve all they get.

1 comment:

Ossian said...

I was going to be, I was there in the room but it turned into a caesarian. Even then, I have since been told that I should have gone to watch that. But now I don't think men should be around for births, at all. I can't give any good reason, though. I feel that it's stupid and pointless and also ludicrous and phoney. If people want to hold hands, well and good, let them, but I'm sure that only increases the pain. Pethidine is far more useful. What on earth is the point of the hapless bloke in the whole scene? Ideally, we should be eaten like praying mantises after the initial mistake.