University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Violence Against Women. 2023 Jul;29(9):1899-1908. doi: 10.1177/10778012211037379. Epub 2021 Nov 9.
This commentary is a response to the article by Lappaman and Swartz, "How gentle must violence against women be in order not to be violent?" in which the term "obstetric violence" is critiqued. The authors argue that the term is harmful and does violence (to health care workers and even birthers themselves) and is not helpful to efforts to improve or reform maternity care. They suggest that we abandon the term and use less inflammatory descriptions (i.e., such as "mistreatment") instead. While recognizing the inevitable risks involved in naming and writing about obstetric violence, I argue that these risks are necessary in the interests of struggling against unjust systems. I unpack the authors' critique and argue that it ultimately works to minimize experiences of obstetric violence, silence the voices of those that have been speaking out on this issue for a very long time, and casts doubt on the legitimacy of a concept that has only recently received global recognition (after a long and transnational struggle). These harms and dangers are not necessarily the direct intentions of the authors but are embedded in wider structures of power that are often incredulous, disbelieving, and dismissive in the face of testimonies and evidence of gendered and racialized pain/violence.
这篇评论是对 Lappaman 和 Swartz 题为“为了不构成暴力，针对妇女的暴力必须多么温和？”一文的回应，文中对“产时暴力”一词进行了批判。作者认为该术语具有危害性，不仅对医护人员，甚至对产妇本身也构成了伤害，无助于改善或改革产科护理工作。他们建议我们摒弃这一术语，转而使用不那么具煽动性的描述（例如“虐待”）。尽管我认识到给产时暴力命名和描述所涉及的必然风险，但我认为，为了与不公正的制度作斗争，这些风险是必要的。我剖析了作者的批评意见，并认为这些批评最终会淡化产时暴力的体验，使长期以来一直对此问题发声的人的声音沉默，对这一概念的合法性提出质疑，而这一概念只是在经过长期的跨国斗争后才刚刚得到全球认可。这些伤害和危险不一定是作者的直接意图，但却根植于权力的广泛结构之中，这些结构在面对性别和种族化的痛苦/暴力的证词和证据时往往难以置信、怀疑和不屑一顾。
