Happy belated birthday, Erin!

And Yay Baby Girl!

And ~ma to the pain and car and whatnot people.

I wanted to write it all in the morning, but there was a new bed shopping. So now, without further ado, here is What I Think And My Opinion Only FFS Childbirth And Perspectives Manifesto, As Written By A Never-Gave-Birth-25-Woman:

1. I don't really believe there's a clear line between private and public. I'm also not quite sure where the "personal" enters the picture, but I'll stick to what I "legally know", which is private and public. More than that, I think that the definitions of what is private and what is public are changing as times and technology change. If 30 years ago sitting in your room and minding your own business was consider a private thing, is it still private when you've got a webcam and streaming to the rest of the world? Or if you're deceiving others to get their credit card numbers on the internet? Are these actions private or not? Can you "mind your own business" while walking down the street? Is it the essence of the deed or the place where it's taken place at what makes a situation public or private? I don't know. There are some strict legal boundaries WRT to what can you do and what can't you do and what can't be done to you in public spaces and in private spaces. What I do know, is that none of all this makes an experience any less personal or public, or has anything to do with the place or the essence of it.

2. No man (woman) is an island. As a society, we're depended on each other - and as technology controls our lives (1), we're more depended on others. When a woman in labor enters the hospital to give birth, she can't ask everyone in the hospital staff for his/her resume and then decide. She has to trust the hospital's HR, and the OB/GYN she chose before (if she could). It doesn't make her childbirth experience any less personal, no. But do others have a say or a hand in how this experience will conduct? Yes. Is it anything personal for them? Don't know.

3. Value and Personal Value. A lot of people go above and beyond, everyday, to create something of value in this world. I'm in awe of anyone who builds something, creates a thing, writes a book, of gives life. On the whole, it does seem that giving birth is the peak in the creating something new: a life, out of labor. There you create the thing in itself - a life. I'm not asking to take that or disentitle it from anyone. But I'm not asking to make it into something that is not. After catching up on things, yes, Buffistas do tend to describe it more "realistically". It's the world around me, however, which fails at doing so.

4. (More of (1): Outsiders and the Public). It's very hard for me to think of more than a few private deeds which don't hold a public value. Giving birth isn't one of them. Not only that it's an experience of two people which affects more, the baby is giving a name and an SSN, getting shots and a nationality. All of these are public aspects of a personal experience, never mind how it'll be remembered as. That is why the PoV of outsiders is so important sometimes. Not just because they're "experts", but because personal experiences have other sides which aren't considered by insiders. That is something they do in publicity and in myth making: detaching an experience out of the time-space sequence into something else. Mostly, in childbirth, the added value I think of isn't the question of "which color for the blanket?", but "what life can we give this new person?". Sadly, I see this question faded into questions of consumption of experiences, not of life. For life isn't a sequence of experiences that has to be marketed to anyone, no matter how much blood and pain involved in the process.

5. That is why, IMHO, public and private are very fluid things to define. The value of life, however, isn't - and that is why I'm on tiptoes to make sure there won't be any mistakes or confusions about that. When speaking of childbirth as an experience which ditched of all of its other aspects I feel as if this fine line (continued...)

( continues...) is slipping away. And the more we're in touch of more people, there's actually more chance it'll slip away, for everything becomes a "job", a task in a to do list, while we keep searching for this "personal experience" thing for ourselves. And that's why it's important to listen to as much people as possible and check as much angles as possible - because it's your life, not a commercial. The more a personal experience becomes a job and a task to others, the more alienated our society will be.

6. Basically, these are the two sides of the same coin, the public and the private. It's up to anyone to choose where their own personal experience lies. But anyone who'll try to market to me just the personal experience without any other information/aspects is "suspicious" (or intriguing) to me. And that is all.

Shir, I think your perspective is interesting, and obviously has a lot of thought behind it.

I do need to note that "suspicious" and "intriguing" have 2 entirely different meanings, and which word you choose colors how I read what you're saying. (I also VERY much realize that English isn't your first language, and so what I'm about to ask isn't an attack on you, it's just a request for clarification based on your word choice.)

So when you say this:

But anyone who'll try to market to me just the personal experience without any other information/aspects is "suspicious" (or intriguing) to me.

do you mean that you are interested in finding out more ("intriguing"), or you think that person is being dishonest ("suspicious")?

Because those are 2 totally different things. I know that yesterday you used the word "suspicious," and that's what set me off, personally. Because "suspicious" = "dishonest" (or suspected of being dishonest), and so that's how I took your meaning.

If you mean "intriguing," as in "hey, tell me more about your experience," that's very, very different.

I hope that makes sense.

It makes sense, Steph, and it helps me to be clearer.

When someone tells me a personal experience, I can either think it's intriguing or suspicious - but either way, most chances are that I'd like to hear more. This is my bottom line, actually: I'd love to give personal experiences every credit I can, but I need to hear more to get a perspective. Doesn't matter if I'm turned off or on by the story - I want to get the full details. It's not that I think that the other person is necessarily dishonest, or even fascinating - but that it's so hard to be aware to external aspects of a personal experience, that I can't judge solely on that.

I think that a part of me is so persistent about it because I don't do it enough, but I'm very aware of the price (the slipping line of life I wrote about). The price of forgetting it just scares me.

Is it clearer now?

If you're on Medicare, epidurals and c-sections should not be covered. Because there's no real need for them

In general, I agree with this, now if they were talking Medicaid that would be a different story.

My new officemate thinks the federal government is using GPS to spy on everybody.

Does he realize they are called GPS receivers, not transmitters?

It's not that I think that the other person is necessarily dishonest, or even fascinating - but that it's so hard to be aware to external aspects of a personal experience, that I can't judge solely on that.

Is it clearer now?

So what you're saying is that you DO think some (not all, or maybe even many, but SOME) people are being dishonest when recounting their personal lived experiences? And so you need outside corroboration before you can decide if they're being dishonest?

I just want to make sure I'm reading you right before I reply.

So what you're saying is that you DO think some (not all, or maybe even many, but SOME) people are being dishonest when recounting their personal lived experiences? And so you need outside corroboration before you can decide if they're being dishonest?

Difficult question. Not all, not most, and the ones who do are probably salesmen of this-and-that. But I think that some can be dishonest - not on purpose, but because we're all humans. Like, I know I'm colorblind (actually, color-shade blind, since of what I know, women can't be color blind. Sorry, too lazy to come up right now with the term in English, but that's the sorta-translation from Hebrew). So if a person will ask me what I think of a color, I'd say my opinion but will also mention that I'm color shade blind - which is something which I couldn't possibly know without an external perspective, and not because I was trying to deceive anyone.

Do I question if their description is how they really felt about something? No. In that way, they are telling the truth. Do I question their description will fit into my own personal experience and perspective? Yes. So I ask around.

It's not that I think that (most) people are dishonest on purpose - they're being people. And that's why it's my responsibility to make sure I'm getting the full details and perspective.

Do I question if their description is how they really felt about something? No. In that way, they are telling the truth.

I don't understand, then, how the word "dishonest" (or "suspicious") applies. Ever.

Do I question their description will fit into my own personal experience and perspective? Yes.

That doesn't mean that they're being dishonest. It means you don't have a frame of reference for it. Those aren't even remotely the same.

I just continue to have a problem with the idea of assessing someone's own personal experience as dishonest. Like, "This dessert tastes like shit." "What? You are a liar, because *I* love it!" The first person isn't being dishonest; their experience simply doesn't match up with the second person's experience.

I understand wanting to know more if you don't have a frame of reference for something (i.e., I've never given birth, what is it like?), but I don't understand thinking they might be dishonest because you don't have a frame of reference to compare it against (i.e., You say giving birth was beautiful, but since I haven't experienced that, I'll have to ask other people if their experience was also beautiful before I can believe that you really truly meant what you said.)

I don't understand, then, how the word "dishonest" (or "suspicious") applies. Ever.

Yes, as you wrote - "suspicious" from my-inspiring-to-be-as-wholesome-as-possible-perspective. Not theirs.

their experience simply doesn't match up with the second person's experience.

In my world, most of the first persons are trying over and over to convince the second persons that the dessert, in fact, tastes like shit. I never said people (or my thinking) are easy.

I don't understand thinking they might be dishonest because you don't have a frame of reference to compare it against (i.e., You say giving birth was beautiful, but since I haven't experienced that, I'll have to ask other people if their experience was also beautiful before I can believe that you really truly meant what you said.)

Please, please, please take "believe" out of it. "Understand" is the verb. Because I do, in fact, believe that their description is how they felt about it. But I'd understand people and their experiences better given a frame of reference. So the experience only doesn't count much on my "belief-o-meter", so to speak. Not because they're lying or trying to trick me - but because I could relate to them so much better, as human beings, given something more than just a personal experience. Otherwise, it's just thin description (to my perspective).

What do you know. I guess it's really all. about. me. (in the end).

for Hil's officemate: [link]