babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Pregnant Britney sculpture giving birth

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Pregnant Britney sculpture giving birth
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 29 March 2006 11:45 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is beyond freaky.
From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 29 March 2006 11:55 AM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ha. I'm waiting for Britney to issue a statement about how tasteless this depiction of her is.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
JPG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10478

posted 29 March 2006 11:57 AM      Profile for JPG     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ha, "Monument to Pro-Life"..that's hilarious.
From: Toronto/Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 29 March 2006 11:58 AM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
This is beyond freaky.

Sorry - I have to ask: why, exactly, is this your gut reaction?


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 29 March 2006 12:12 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It just seems like an odd sculpture to make of a pop star, especially without her participation or permission. A little intimate, too.

If this guy did a sculpture of his wife giving birth I don't think I'd have given it another thought.

His decapitated head sculpture was a little "out there" too, by my reckoning.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 29 March 2006 12:13 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Only a man could depict labour as a sexualized display.
This artist, IMO, is being dishonest. He's quoted as saying his sculpture isn't political but he gave to it the most politicized title he could possibly give. Modern artists that want their work to be interpreted by the viewer (particularly abstract artists) will often not name their piece at all, or give it a number, or sometimes give it a name that is enigmatic.
The pro-life phrase being included in the name of the work is nothing more than marketing - most of the artworld would consider this pretty tacky.
I would have considered the work more seriously as a comment on objectification and modern media commodification of women if he had not said what he said.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 29 March 2006 12:14 PM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
It just seems like an odd sculpture to make of a pop star, especially without her participation or permission. A little intimate, too.

I didn't get the part about no permission/participation. If that's the case, then it's not OK.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 29 March 2006 12:18 PM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by faith:
Only a man could depict labour as a sexualized display.

True, it's not exactly a conventional birthing position (that I know of.) Still, I wouldn't qualify it as "freaky". Curious that this could be a pro-life statement - most prolifers I know would see this and go 'ick! freaky!'


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 29 March 2006 12:20 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't know what the rules are around celebrity images in the US - don't they have to protect their own images in a court of law? I believe that I read somewhere that Paul Newman was in court trying to have his image protected up to 70 years after his death.
I wonder if Britney, after making a living displaying herself in public in very sexualized poses and clothing while she sings,would have grounds to object to this sculpture?

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
F.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10725

posted 29 March 2006 12:24 PM      Profile for F.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm waiting for Britney to issue a statement about how tasteless this depiction of her is.

There's a joke about her husband in there somewhere.


From: here | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 29 March 2006 12:26 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If Mr. Dweeb hadn't said it was Britney, who'd know?

Hopefully his microbiologist wife can isolate whatever virus has affected his wits.


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Tiger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10186

posted 29 March 2006 12:32 PM      Profile for West Coast Tiger     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm with you on this one, Magoo. Freaky.
From: I never was and never will be a Conservative | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
goyanamasu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12173

posted 29 March 2006 12:42 PM      Profile for goyanamasu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Faith said "Only a man could depict labour as a sexualized display." I'd say not a man who'd been through it bedside; he'd see it as part of life.

But before you all pat my back, it's the lack of pillows under her belly and the baby's head emerging (plus the white, bearskin underneath) that spins this beyond artistic portrayal.

Perhaps a couple in the midst of intercourse while she's pregnant would 'freak out' the public even more. How sad to think it.


From: End Arbitrary Management Style Now | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 29 March 2006 12:49 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Only a man could depict labour as a sexualized display

Yet the female reporter described the work as "a sexy sculpture". To each his/her own, I guess.

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
JPG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10478

posted 29 March 2006 01:16 PM      Profile for JPG     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Curious that this could be a pro-life statement - most prolifers I know would see this and go 'ick! freaky!'

I immediately inferred from the title that it was a jab at Kevin Federline (is that his name), that keeping his baby was a tesiment to the pro-life movement. Tasteless, so I retract my earlier statement about it being funny. Then again, maybe I'm just a sicko for coming to that conclusion.


From: Toronto/Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424

posted 29 March 2006 01:33 PM      Profile for RP.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anne cameron:
If Mr. Dweeb hadn't said it was Britney, who'd know?

Hopefully his microbiologist wife can isolate whatever virus has affected his wits.


Uncalled for.


From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 29 March 2006 01:43 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anne cameron:
If Mr. Dweeb hadn't said it was Britney, who'd know?

Everyone who looked at it. It looks just like her.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 29 March 2006 03:54 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Uncalled for.

What did you find offensive in Anne's post? I really didn't think the sarcasm was that over the top.
The reporter called it a sexy sculpture because the whole thing is so cheesy, centrefold kind of material. Doggie style on a bearskin rug - how else would you describe it? Many people define sexy in the terms that have been marketed to us through print media and pornography.
While this doesn't fit the description of sexy to me, it would for millions of other people.
Anne I wouldn't have been able to recognise Britney Spears from the picture of the sculpture either, not that I spend much time looking at Ms. Spears. I am so used to seeing a rounded pouty face covered in make-up that the monochromatic grey of the sculpture could be anyone.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 29 March 2006 03:59 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brebis noire:

True, it's not exactly a conventional birthing position (that I know of.) Still, I wouldn't qualify it as "freaky". Curious that this could be a pro-life statement - most prolifers I know would see this and go 'ick! freaky!'


If the baby is crowning, that's an almost impossible position to hold -- you need to curve your back the other way.

If you really want to freak out Magoo, just ask me how I know that...


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 29 March 2006 04:11 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh it wasn't birth that made me say this whole thing is freaky. It's the idea of someone making and displaying a sculpture this intimate about a total stranger. For her face he could consult a million "People" magazines and the like. I wonder what he did for everything else?

"Dear Ms. Spears,

Could you please send me a photograph, or better yet a casting, of your anus and external genitalia for a life-sized sculpture of you giving birth that I intend to create..."


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 29 March 2006 04:17 PM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by faith:

Doggie style on a bearskin rug - how else would you describe it?

"Iconic"

Sorry faith, I'm not looking for trouble, it's just a word that popped into my head.
I kind of have to laugh at all of this, but that's just my reaction, today.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
goyanamasu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12173

posted 29 March 2006 04:52 PM      Profile for goyanamasu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

"Dear Ms. Spears,

Could you please send me a photograph, or better yet a casting, of your anus and external genitalia for a life-sized sculpture of you giving birth that I intend to create..."


Jeez, Mr. Magoo, you don't lack imagination, but one of two things is lacking in your experience here: late night television or double mirrors in your bedroom. All the details are hidden by the head.

Oh, sorry, I guess I just eroticized birth. The answer, of course, requires a photograph from the other side. Without it we've all just been pissing in the wind, not a bad idea for his next sculture at that.


From: End Arbitrary Management Style Now | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424

posted 29 March 2006 05:10 PM      Profile for RP.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by faith:
What did you find offensive in Anne's post?

Am I wrong, or was that not gratuitous name calling against a forum member on anne cameron's part?

[ 29 March 2006: Message edited by: RP. ]


From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 29 March 2006 05:12 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought she meant the sculptor, not the poster.
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
goyanamasu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12173

posted 29 March 2006 05:36 PM      Profile for goyanamasu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
RP calls in:

-- Did you complain, Mr. McGoo? Did anybody complain? I didn't hear any complaints.

-- Nobody in here but us ducks, a goose or two, and the rabbits, RP.

-- Sorry.


From: End Arbitrary Management Style Now | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 29 March 2006 05:36 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I also took it to be a comment on the sculptor or the specific brain fart that conceived of a representation of Britney Spears on a bearskin carpet as worthy of the designation of 'fine art'.
From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424

posted 29 March 2006 05:42 PM      Profile for RP.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps so. In which case, apologies to a.c.
From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
chester the prairie shark
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6993

posted 29 March 2006 06:19 PM      Profile for chester the prairie shark     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
you know, the more i think about this the more i'm starting to think this is brilliant art (from the art should be social commentary POV). think about the current social controversies and mores that this piece highlights:

overt sexuality, brittany was at the forefront of the "banality of sex thing" in pop music. yet she's from the south and probably holds prolife views. prolifers aren't noted as "prosexers" yet life and birth means sex. Blending birth and a purely viceral, sexual pose throws some pretty stark social issues into juxtaposition does it not?


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 29 March 2006 06:21 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Maybe. It's still not going in my livingroom.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
chester the prairie shark
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6993

posted 29 March 2006 06:26 PM      Profile for chester the prairie shark     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
true
From: Saskatoon | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
goyanamasu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12173

posted 29 March 2006 06:28 PM      Profile for goyanamasu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chester the prairie shark:
you know, the more i think about this the more i'm starting to think this is brilliant art (from the art should be social commentary POV). think about the current social controversies and mores that this piece highlights:

overt sexuality, brittany was at the forefront of the "banality of sex thing" in pop music. yet she's from the south and probably holds prolife views. prolifers aren't noted as "prosexers" yet life and birth means sex. Blending birth and a purely viceral, sexual pose throws some pretty stark social issues into juxtaposition does it not?


Here's a "stark social issue" for you: I just pull a Tom Sawyer in the chicken coop routine, save everybody's butt (not Brittany's but a fellow babbler's), and what thanks do I get? Not even one kudo.

Thanks alot "GUYS". I'm goin back and do my own dirty work ...


From: End Arbitrary Management Style Now | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 29 March 2006 06:37 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Tom Sawyer routine was a little obscure. And I should know, as a retired obscurantist.
From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
goyanamasu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12173

posted 29 March 2006 06:44 PM      Profile for goyanamasu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yossarian
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Is this obscure? Isn't your namesake in the movie Catch 22 the one who gets cut off at the knees by the propeller on an incoming fighter cub? No, you are right. Some people know how to tell 'em, others don't.
Please come out of retirement, Yossarian. The world needs you. I need you. (Don't let that great memory of yours go to waste.)
But you know, you've served as my reality principal (al) more than once. In more ways than one as well (the most obscurantist remark, I promise. I will never make a more obscure one again in this venue).

[ 29 March 2006: Message edited by: goyanamasu ]


From: End Arbitrary Management Style Now | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 29 March 2006 07:05 PM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think this piece is amazing.

How the hell is the viewer supposed to know that she's actually giving birth? Why does she have to be naked? What the hell is with the bearskin rug?

Britney has been the exemplary sex symbol in North America for the past ten years. She leaves the spotlight to give birth and whamo: she's depicted naked on all fours with her ass up in the air lightly gripping the head of a roaring bear. Like many have mentioned, this has nothing to do with birth and everything to do with pornographic fantasy.

This is how Britney's male fan base imagines her. This is also how a 40 year-old sculptor visualizes the virtue of pro-life philosophy. In this male's eyes, birth is a sex-act, where the male is an observer, not a supporter or contributor. Birth is also about as real as the sexuality Britney herself portrayed in her videos. There's no blood, no fuss, no assisstance and poignantly enough, no baby.

This sculpture is incredible.


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 29 March 2006 07:25 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
How the hell is the viewer supposed to know that she's actually giving birth? Why does she have to be naked? What the hell is with the bearskin rug?


Well, from the article:

quote:
The life-size pop princess is naked and pregnant, crouching face-down on a bare-toothed bear rug as the baby's head appears on the opposite end.

Amazing and incredibly bad art. This is no tribute to the power of women to bring life into the world. Rather it seems to me a demeaning of the effort of women's birth labour.

Doggy style is the reverse of an actual birthing position in any society with which I am familiar. On the contrary doggy style emphasizes the position which many porn magazines fantasize the female form for the purpose of insemination.

Blech. I'm with anne cameron here -- hope his wife can help the little dweeb out with his problems.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 29 March 2006 07:54 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Doggy style is the reverse of an actual birthing position in any society with which I am familiar.

If I'm not mistaken, the "traditional" position for birthing (on back, legs up) came about at the demand of some-or-other French king, who wanted to see his heir born. My understanding is that not all cultures birth this way, and that's what a lot of the alternative-birth movement seems to espouse too.

I can't assert that that's why the sculptor picked that position though; I have no idea what goes through his head.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
goyanamasu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12173

posted 29 March 2006 08:04 PM      Profile for goyanamasu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the 'natural position', lying on a bed, changes from one moment to the next. The stirrups are for the Ob/Gyne, not the mother. Alot of Ob/Gynes have some catching up to do, not all.

Why even discuss the icon of an African woman in the fields. I think it's bullshit.

Sorry I got your Magoo moniker wrong, but thanks for shutting up. I thought you rarely did. Go figure.


From: End Arbitrary Management Style Now | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 29 March 2006 08:07 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

If I'm not mistaken, the "traditional" position for birthing (on back, legs up) came about at the demand of some-or-other French king, who wanted to see his heir born. My understanding is that not all cultures birth this way, and that's what a lot of the alternative-birth movement seems to espouse too.


I've read that when men took over midwifery and transformed it into gynaecology -- the men wanted a position that was easier for them during the birthing process..

Many traditional societies give birth with the pregnant woman squatting -- gravity helps. Another woman (or 2) help the woman squat by holding her above the waist, one woman is below to check on the outcome.

So it's not the exact inverse of doggy style.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 29 March 2006 08:21 PM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is why I think this scuplture is so great: the disconnection between purpose and product is fascinating. He ostensibly intended to glorify "birth" and hence compel others to shun abortion. Instead, he created a piece of starlet pornography where the only way to see the child is to stand behind Britney (who is on all fours) and stare at her crotch. It seems to me that it renders the pro-life agenda a phallocentric, sexualized fetish of femininity. Where's the concern for the child, or for the family? I though that's what pro-life is all about.

Also striking is that the Britney in the sculpture is not the Britney who was pregnant. It's just schoolgirl Britney with a big stomach. Her body type has (as one would expect) completely changed, but apparently in this artist's mind it's still a skinny corporate sex symbol. The raw sexualized animality the roaring bear rug inescapably evokes repressed urges in the absent male viewer. This is no "Mother Earth" reference, as the artist claims to have attempted: this is pure heterosexual male erotic fantasy.


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 29 March 2006 08:32 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If i were to post this:

would it complicate things unnecessarily?


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 29 March 2006 08:34 PM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
This is how Britney's male fan base imagines her. This is also how a 40 year-old sculptor visualizes the virtue of pro-life philosophy. In this male's eyes, birth is a sex-act, where the male is an observer, not a supporter or contributor.
Meh. Just another version of someone who has spent way too much time in the Gillian-Anderson's-Head-On-Someone-Elses-Naked-Body newsgroup. About time to get out of mom's basement for awhile, methinks.

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 29 March 2006 08:37 PM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by siren:

I've read that when men took over midwifery and transformed it into gynaecology -- the men wanted a position that was easier for them during the birthing process..



A position that's easier for male physicians would also have been easier for midwives. Anyways, it was the midwives who taught the doctors pretty much everything about normal childbirth.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Tiger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10186

posted 29 March 2006 08:56 PM      Profile for West Coast Tiger     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nice pic there, Siren.

In Japan, it is my understanding that "birthing chairs" are used for many births - though women have a choice of birthing on a bed.

Don't have a picture of one, but I do have this account from an American lady. Mind you, it's not that graphic... I thought it was at first, but it's not.

Here

and this is the complete story for those who want to hear about the birth...

Here.

[ 29 March 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Tiger ]


From: I never was and never will be a Conservative | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 29 March 2006 09:10 PM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I kind of dig the sculpture. It calls to mind all those tabloid weeklies with their "bump watches" and features on expecting stars. It's baby porn -- pushing pregnancy as the latest fashion, and babies as the hottest new commodity. Something about this sculpture kind of captures that, I think.
From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 29 March 2006 10:40 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Doggy style is the reverse of an actual birthing position in any society with which I am familiar. On the contrary doggy style emphasizes the position which many porn magazines fantasize the female form for the purpose of insemination.

Actually, although I wouldn't call it doggy style, all fours can be a good birthing position, depending on a number of labour factors. I considered it myself, since I had very fast deliveries and it can slow down the crowning, etc, thus preventing some tearing -- a squat, the preferred position for women who have slow deliveries, wouldn't have given me enough time to stretch things out.

I did spend a good part of hard labour, especially transition, rocking forward and back on all fours. It's a great position for working that pelvis loose, and just generally felt right. However, you couldn't do it in the sculpture's position, the arms are stretched too far forward to comfortably support you, and the arch to the back would have been viciously painful with a baby in the birth canal.

Midwives tend to be more flexible on birthing position than MDs, and are more concerned about how the position is for the mother rather than the practitioner.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 29 March 2006 11:04 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brebis noire:
A position that's easier for male physicians would also have been easier for midwives.

Anyways, it was the midwives who taught the doctors pretty much everything about normal childbirth.


The first part is true enough, but the suggestion from Magoo made me think of Mary Daly's, Gyn/Ecology : The Metaethics of Radical Feminism.

Many writers consider that midwives (and some -- usually more modern-- gynecologists) put the health and comfort of the birthing woman first.

When midwifery was overtaken and giving birth was "medicalized" and "professionalized", the suggestion is that the woman giving birth became secondary to the comfort and knowledge of the (almost always male) gynecologist. Further that women did not so much give up their previous role as midwives (or freely teach it to the men) but that women were, historically, forced to relinquish their status and role as midwives.

West Coast Tiger, thanks for the Japanese examples.

Timebandit -- that's interesting, thanks. I rarely think about the alternate issue -- having to slow the birth of the baby.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 29 March 2006 11:13 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JPG:
Ha, "Monument to Pro-Life"..that's hilarious.
Did anyone tell this guy that "pro-life" is an adjective? And that if we have a "Monument to X", then X is normally a noun?

We don't normally build a "Monument to Fast", or a "Monument to Anti-Communist", or indeed a "Monument to Adjectival". If he was smart, he would have simply called it "Monument to Life", and let people draw their own conclusions. But clearly he is not smart.

Sincerely,

Grammarian


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 30 March 2006 09:54 AM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Timebandit:
Midwives tend to be more flexible on birthing position than MDs, and are more concerned about how the position is for the mother rather than the practitioner.


Truly, what I wouldn't have given for a 'fast labour'.
MDs and nurses usually aren't versed in a huge variety of alternatives (but the doctors I knew were very open-minded - they suggested all kinds of positions, including standing, squatting and kneeling, but made it clear that when crowning happened, there was a standard position.) What concerns them is that the baby be properly 'caught' when it exits, among other strictly medical concerns (e.g. for episiotomies - tearing can happen during slow delivery, as well ....)


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 30 March 2006 10:03 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not complaining. Fast is definitely a good thing.

Tearing can still happen with a slow delivery, true. But there's that space during crowning where you need to control the push, and that can be easier the less vertical you are. Flat on your back doesn't help much either, because your pelvis movement is more restricted. You might still tear, but you may tear less or lessen the possibility of tearing. That was one of my prime aims with babe #2. Stitches suck.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kindly Wise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8699

posted 01 April 2006 10:52 PM      Profile for Kindly Wise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I kind of like the sculpture. Cand I have one in 1:5 reduction for my cubicle?

I wonder whether Britanny would be mollified if the sculpture were diguised as someone else - Tom Cruise, for example?


From: Etobicoke, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wee Mousie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12266

posted 02 April 2006 01:47 AM      Profile for Wee Mousie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just wait until the religious right hears that this work is a piece of art supporting one of their causes, just like the Jesus with the glowing heart on black velvet, and Gibsons snuff film; then you people will realize your folly.

Mr. Edwards will hardly be able to keep up with the demand. Especially the copies that include a digital clock built into Britneys stomach and a goose-necked lamp growing out of her arse.


From: Mouse Hole | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Deep Dish
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9609

posted 02 April 2006 04:28 AM      Profile for Deep Dish     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is a weird sculpture and my first reaction to it was that it the artist titled a piece he had intended as some rather unorthodox nude (created for the same reasons nudes are usually created) as a pro life piece.

The woman's body position is not one I suspect is common for birthing, for practical reasons I think the bearskin rug is a strange aspect of the sculpture - that bearskin rug would never come clean, and the resemblance to Britney is not all that striking....

What interests me about this sculpture is watching to see if the religious right is going to say that the sculpture is bs that doesn't fit their values, or demand that one be placed in front of every hospital in the American south. This sector of the population has a tendency to ignore things that oppose their worldview, and this piece claims to support it but I suspect is actually trying to send a different message. So I really like the challenge it presents to the religious right and think it may drive them towards some logical paradox about the junction of love, sex, and the creation of life. Then again, logic isn't really a strength of the relgious right.

That said the overall reaction has been interesting, I personally suspect the artist is enjoying a huge laugh at all this press and talk.


From: halfway between the gutter and the stars | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca