Home |
Texts |
Next Chapter |
|---|
|
Chapter II The Present Position of Women (II) The Married We shall now examine a little more closely the lot of the 9,000,000 odd women in England and Wales who are or who have been married, and endeavour to find out whether similar tendencies to those already discovered in the previous chapter are making their influence felt in the matrimonial life of the country. Attention has already been called to the fact that, almost as fast as bodily parts or functions are lost, science comes forward with aids that enable us to carry on notwithstanding; and also that these substitutes, combined with the third-rate bodily experiences secured by our impaired physique, make us question the value of both life and love. Nowhere, however, are the effects of imperfect functioning or incomplete bodies more acutely felt than in the married state; and that is why, if science had recognized the importance of securing happiness for this state, it would In our present world the effect of the body-despising values enters as a disturber of our bliss into almost every aspect of matrimony. It enters first in the form of our impaired physiques, and affects the female partner in two ways: it depreciates the quality of her most important natural extra-corporeal equipment, man, and therefore the quality of her joy; and it further depreciates that joy through her own indifferent bodily condition. It enters next in the form of Puritanism, which, thanks to its associated fear of, and incompetence in, sexual matters, arrests the male partner's impulses, causing him to hesitate, flounder, and frequently to fail, whereby the ideal relationship of two ardent lovers is marred, if not destroyed; and it usually succeeds in preventing them from attaining the top wave of ecstasy by imposing inhibitions against perfectly instinctive desires. Finally, it enters by rendering ever more and more harassing for the woman the natural consequences of conjugal intimacy — gestation, parturition, and We cannot here discuss the many ways in which our bodily disorders and defects interfere with the happy congress of man and wife. Suffice it to say, however, that science already gives a good deal of assistance even here, and is likely to perform a good deal more. At all events, this much we may say without impropriety — that, as fast as Puritanism and bodily imperfections together have conspired to cast a slur on sex by converting the congress of the human couple from an experience of magic beauty into an ordeal of both painful embarrassment and actual pain, not only have a certain number of women begun to think that conception without congress would be a god-send, but a scientific technique, which realizes this desideratum, has also been brought to ever greater efficiency. Artificial impregnation — the scientific aid again! — is now a thoroughly familiar operation, frequently performed; and, if the present tendencies continue, and the body-despising values culminate in their extreme logical consequence — the elimination of the body — there can be no doubt that it will become ever more and more customary. Now it may be stated straight away that there are no human functions that have got into a more alarming state of abnormality and muddle than gestation, parturition, and lactation. Indeed, so great are the divergences from Nature in the two latter functions, that it is no exaggeration to say that, all hope of ever recovering normal conditions having long since been abandoned, all persons have now resigned themselves to an almost complete reliance on artificial aids. In the middle and so-called "upper" classes instruments and anæsthetics are now very nearly the rule in helping the function of parturition, while among the poorer classes they are very common. And in regard to lactation, all kinds of unnatural food, including, of course, cow's milk, take the place of breast-feeding. The doctors, the nurses, the mothers, and the whole population have, we declare, resigned themselves to the modern conditions of difficult and scientifically aided childbirth; but it would be more strictly accurate to say that they have meekly prostrated them- The ugly circumstances of modern childbirth, mitigated to some extent only by a liberal use of anæsthetics, are now sufficient to intimidate any young woman who happens to reflect, before marriage, on her future prospects; while to those already married they constitute a heavy lowering cloud, which hardly ever disperses until the climacteric at last puts an end to all anxiety. Stated in the most moderate terms, these ugly circumstances at least add to the arguments which, in our Puritanical and Feminist atmosphere, accumulate year by year against both the body and the sexual life; and for this reason alone, if for no other, it is important for us to examine them and to see how, or whether, they can be mitigated. The curious part of it is that, here, we are not confronted by degeneration or malformation nearly to the extent that some people suppose; but by ignorance, lack of initiative in the medical profession, and the foolish superstitions of all A certain percentage of births still takes place each year under normal conditions — that is to say, without anæsthetics or instruments; but even of these it is safe to say that they are accompanied by much more pain than can possibly be natural; while, owing to circumstances quite independent of the mother's bodily condition, even these cases often receive quite unnecessary scientific aid. The circumstances that cause doctors to interfere more and more frequently with confinements that promise to be normal are the following: In the well-to-do classes, the extreme busyness of the doctor, on the one hand, which makes him disinclined to wait for Nature to do her work; and, on the other, his interested relationship to his patient, which makes it almost necessary for him to appear as her champion. By encouraging the patient to be put to sleep and to allow the process to be hurried, the doctor thus kills two birds with one stone. After only a few hours' labour, therefore, he will employ anesthetics, and the result is that what might have been a fairly normal confinement, free from anæsthesia and instruments, be- In the poorer classes the same thing happens, except that poor women often go to some public institution to be confined. It should not be forgotten, however, that young and aspiring doctors have to acquire some practice with the obstetric forceps, and that it is precisely in homes and hospitals that this practice can be obtained. Instead of its being the excessive busyness of the doctor that leads to the hasty and unnecessary use of instruments, therefore, it is now the circumstance that the woman may find herself in a maternity-home or hospital. And the tragic part of it is that the demonstrating surgeon in such cases, far from selecting an abnormal pregnancy for his exhibition, deliberately chooses the' most normal of his patients, because of the greater ease with which the demonstration can then be made. Thus, even when Nature is most willing and modern women are most normal, natural functioning is spurned and rebuffed. Such cases, however, are possible only in an atmosphere that has long been infected with body-despising prejudices. In no other atmosphere would the doctors dare to behave in this way. At all events, among both the rich Provisionally we suggest the following reasons for the difficulties of parturition among modern women, and for the fact that nothing is done to restore more normal functioning: (a) The absurd superstition that our heads are getting larger and that the pelves of women are getting smaller. Doctors are persuaded that the difficulty of modern childbirth must be due to "Progress." And, since "Progress" is erroneously connected in their own and most people's minds with the belief that men are growing more intelligent (which quite obviously they are not), the facile conclusion is reached that, as our brains must be growing larger, our heads must follow suit. It is hardly necessary to say that this is sheer nonsense, and no more than an indolent excuse for the Conservative stagnation of the medical brotherhood. The heads of modern people are certainly not larger than the heads of their ancestors ten thousand years ago (vide Keith's Antiquity of (b) The still more absurd superstition that a baby should be 8 or 9 lbs at birth. This is universal in England, and whether it is the daily newspapers over the birth of a prince, or a poor woman's neighbours over the birth of a new pauper, everybody is jubilant if an 8-lb baby is born. It (c) The belief, deeply rooted in the modern and lay minds, that it is God's decree that children should be brought forth in sorrow. Having rejected the Genesis version of the origin of man and all living creatures, it is remarkable that the modern world, led by its men of science, should take so seriously a curse mentioned in the first book of Moses, which, even if its effect be admitted as possible, had probably only a tribal or national application when it was uttered. And it is still more odd that they should regard us and our womenfolk as still lying under its spell. For, apart from the fact that there are savage and semi-civilized tribes still in existence with whom childbirth is not nearly such a sorrowful event as some might suppose, but a simple and easy function (teste Now, in view of these three articles of faith, not only are the doctors and the public in an attitude that paralyses all endeavour to effect a change for the better, but both the doctors and the public have ceased to ask whether any Nevertheless the present writer continues to ask the question, and for the following reasons: For a long time it has seemed to him suspicious that Nature, who is so uniform in her methods and who with such unfailing consistency has made all vital functions pleasant, should have made this one conspicuous exception, particularly in regard to a function linked to the most vital moment in our lives. Being unsatisfied with the verdict of science on the subject, therefore, he made inquiries on his own account, and was not at all surprised to find, not only that a number of existing races still enjoy infinitely greater ease in parturition than most European women, but also that, as he expected, there are still to be found among mankind faint vestiges of that ecstasy which he believes must once After having made a number of observations and experiments on the higher animals, he discovered not only that parturition is in fact ecstatic among these animals when in their natural condition, but also that their ecstasy can quickly be altered to anguish by only the smallest divergence from the normal in their food during gestation. Observing animals in a state of nature, moreover, he arrived at this interesting conclusion, that their young, even when the mothers are in splendid fettle, are only skin and bone at birth, that their birth is an ecstatic function to the mother only when they are in this state, and that young born in this way not only never lose weight, but grow as plump and vigorous as could be wished in the first twenty-four hours. If, however, the gestating mother's 1 See Woman: A Vindication (Constable and Co.; 1923). The present writer has confirmed these facts repeatedly, and they led him to ask this question: whether civilized women, even in antiquity, have not habitually taken the wrong food during gestation, with the result that their babies have been too fat or too hard in the bone at birth? It is notorious that a small, healthy 6-lb baby frequently nourishes better than the heavier infant of 8 or 9 lbs; also that, since the larger baby usually loses weight after birth, its bulk is demonstrably unnecessary at that stage. What then prevents us from adopting what is obviously Nature's plan — the birth of relatively thin and small babies, through care of the gestating mother's food? It is obviously only a question of feeding and hygiene, and of ridding the public and the medical profession of a We feel convinced, from our study of animals, that this is the direction in which inquiry should be directed, for at least it offers some hope of an improvement, whereas the elaboration and more persistent use of artificial aids offers none. Doctors should exert themselves to discover that ideal gestatory diet which will lead to an infant's being born whose weight is from 6 to 61/2 lbs, whose body is lean, whose head is small and not too hard, and who will gain and not lose weight after birth. But we can hardly refrain from adding that, when once these food-conditions are found, medical men are likely to discover that they have much less to do than at present by the bedside of the expectant mother, and that they will then be invited to delegate their duties to someone less learned, less expensive, less pressed for time, and 1 As the present chapter is being written, we notice with pleasure that at a conclave of doctors held recently at Bradford, Dr M. E. Mackenzie, of Leeds, put a question to the meeting which showed that she is evidently on the track of the reforms we recommend; but we were not surprised to find that the President, Dr J. S. Fairbairn, declared that he did not take her remarks seriously. (See British Medical Journal, Aug. 16th, 1924.) Dr Eichholz of Kreuznach, writing in the Frauenarzt as early as 1895, outlined a system of dieting which he declared produced the results described above; while Dr Lahmann, who was the first to point out that our aim should be to obtain smaller and thinner babies, with heads less hard at birth, experimented with a diet poor in nitrogen, which he declared was completely successful. According to Lahmann, it is not only excessive feeding and drinking during pregnancy which, owing to the natural greed of women and the sycophantic encouragement of that greed by ignorant doctors, is the universal error, but the excessive eating of foods rich in protein; and he recommends a diet rich in food-salts and poor in meat and cereals, which seems to approximate very well to what one may imagine the food of primitive mankind to have been. The compass of this work, however, does not allow us to enter into the minutiæ of the Lahmann diet. All we wish to emphasize here is that, if only we can rid our minds of a few ridiculous superstitions and aim at a natural ideal, the attainment of which cannot be beyond the wit of man, the probability is that the "sorrow" in which children are Since our aim should be the recovery of our belief in the value of life and love, by improving our bodily functions, we cannot halt at any difficulty in the way of our success. But success means not only contesting the sway of the body-despising values, but also fighting the Conservatism and prejudices of a great profession, which, while it has great power to-day, can hardly fail to identify its best interests with a perpetuation and aggravation of our present physical disabilities. Passing now to lactation, which constitutes one of the chief joys of motherhood, and which, in its serenity and bliss has in all ages symbolized the beauty of the feminine virtues, the home, and the family, it will perhaps not astonish the reader to hear that there is at present no human function, except parturition, which is more often replaced by artificial means than this one. The vast multiplication in recent years of patent infant-foods and preparations of cow's milk sufficiently demonstrates the extent to which modern women are failing in this respect; and, when it is remembered that this failure is to be observed in No doubt a certain percentage of this increase in artificial feeding is due to actual physiological defects; but we must not make too much of that. Truth to tell, degeneration and defective functioning account for but a trifling number of those who, every year, have recourse to the bottle instead of the breast in the feeding of their infants. For, with few exceptions, lactation can be established in every woman. The general authoritative opinion seems to be that "when care is exercized and adequate attention paid to the necessary details, the glands can in nearly all cases be brought into the required degree of activity," and that if the value of natural feeding were realized, it can hardly be doubted that the capacity for breast-feeding would be found to be practically universal among the women of England." (Dr Janet E. Lane Claypon) The enormous popularity of artificial feeding, therefore, must be due to the increased activities of women of all classes outside the home, which is one of the most noticeable features of the Women's Movement, and the consequent disinclination on their part to undertake Now this would be all very well, and no one could rightly complain, if the substitutes in this case were more akin to natural conditions than are most artificial: aids. If this were so we might regret, from the sentimental and the æsthetic standpoints, the evanescence of breast-feeding, and sympathize en passant with the mothers who were deprived of it as an experience; but we should be able to advance no practical reasons why it was to be deplored from the standpoint of human desirability. And, indeed, for many years this has been the position. Although doctors and commercial corporations repeatedly protest that breast-feeding is best, they are quite ready in the same breath to admit that artificial feeding can be made "as good as mother's milk"; and no one is Thus, once again, while flagrant abnormalities are becoming the rule amongst us, science hastens to set our minds at rest by a shower of artificial aids; and, since we can "carry on," nothing more is said. The problem appears to be a simple one, and, to give scientists their due, they have done little to complicate it. Mother's milk contains so much water, so much protein, carbo-hydrates, fat, and mineral salts, and, when once you have these ingredients in the proper proportions, you have a synthetic product "as good as mother's milk." Indeed, so long have these ingredients and their quantitative values held the field, to the exclusion of everything else, that we have come to believe that cow's milk or even Allenbury's is as normal as breast-feeding. And yet, if we were to undergo a strange and uncommon test hardly ever applied in highly civilized countries, how quickly would our blind faith in even the best artificial methods receive a shock! True, sentiment alone would be responsi- Place a human baby at the dug of a cow, a goat, or an ass, as you sometimes see them placed in semi-civilized countries, and what is it that you immediately feel? The sight is an offence to the eyes, a humiliation of our racial pride. — Why? Instinctively we feel and intellectually we know that Nature makes the wisest provision for her needs. When, therefore, we see one of our babies at the dugs of a goat, our sense of fitness is shocked: even our practical utilitarian prejudices receive a blow. We know instantly that the baby cannot have been meant to take that milk, because it is a nobler creature than the goat and its body has tasks and feats to perform with its food which the kid has not. Above all, it has that huge brain to develop, which the kid has not. Can it be possible that Nature could have overlooked that? The human brain is not only larger at birth than that of any other animal, but its rate of growth is also greater. Is it conceivable that Nature could have made no special provision for that? Hence our sense of degradation and revolt — feelings which somehow are not provoked when the milk reaches us in a The strange part of it, however, is that this sense of degradation and revolt is based upon fact; for not only on a priori grounds may we deny that goat's milk or any other substitute can adequately replace breast-feeding, but we may also deny it from positive knowledge. Years ago Dr Biedert showed that the most important differences between human and cow's milk were qualitative rather than quantitative. A little later Dr G. von Bunge confirmed this view; and Dr Halliburton, the great physiologist, has recently repeated and emphasized it. It is impossible to enter here into the qualitative differences to which these authorities refer: suffice it to say that the gravity of the whole question from our standpoint lies not merely in the greater digestibility of human milk, but in the conspicuous difference between human milk and all other substitutes as a brain-developing food. Dr von Bunge, who calls attention to this point, claims not only that human milk is more complex than its substitutes, but that in it we find lecithin bodies in peculiar proportions, which serve for the It is not surprising that this important point should have been overlooked all this time. As we have already said, materialism is necessarily the creed of body-despisers. But, if Dr von Bunge's view is correct, how severe must have been our loss in intelligence and genius, precisely owing to the decline in breast-feeding! Certainly the uncontrollable and increasing stupidity of our governing classes for over a hundred years, seems to point to the truth of von Bunge's views; for it is among them that, for social reasons, artificial feeding has been, and still is, most common. Dean Inge comments somewhere on the increasing besottedness of modern people, and we entirely agree with his view; but we wonder whether it has ever struck him that the decline in breast-feeding, which is the outcome of his body-despising values, may be one of the most powerful contributory causes of it. For we should always bear in mind, in comparing our poor spiritual achievements with the genial performances of antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the pre-Victorian era, that the artificial feeding of infants is essentially a modern invention, and that it was unknown to antiquity. At all events, it is safe to say that the vast expansion of artificial feeding, as we know it to-day, is something quite recent and new; and, since there appears to be no doubt that, qualitatively, human milk is quite inimitable, it is impossible to calculate the damage which the latest development of "Progress" may ultimately do to the spirits and bodies of civilized men. |
Home |
Texts |
Next Chapter |
|---|