There is no reason to think that it is common for men to "skip out because they have tickets to a playoff game."

That was an illustration (by way of extreme example) regarding the principle that the WHY of why a husband skips is what indicates the nature of the action.

For all your boasting about education and intelligence, you really do fall short when it comes to the application of logic.

Despite your attempt to present the contrary, you really are an insufferable feminist.  I know who wears the pants in your household.

I am an advocate of judging the historic use and understanding of corporal punishment within its historical context.  I refuse to be drawn into yet another discussion of this.

 You're running away because you can't refute the contradiction.  I am not about to discuss the particulars of that subject here, just the principle that if you can find one or more secular medical experts who hold an opinion about something, that overturns any "right" a husband might have over his wife, due to it being against "right reason".  Welcome to the feminist paradise.

Ladislaus, I’m not taking sides in this thread, but it’s unfair for a civil debate to bring into the discussion the topic of corporal punishment or any other topic.  One should be able to debate based on the facts at hand.      

Why some husbands should not be present for childbirth...

Husband #1  Went to Lamaze classes with wife through month 8, then chickened out.  Wife disappointed and upset.  Sister stepped in because she had been a Lamaze coach.  After baby was born, husband mad at wife for letting him miss out on the miracle of new life.

Husband #2  Stayed at wife's bedside throughout labor up to and including birth which required use of forceps.  Mom went home with baby, Dad kept in hospital with concussion.  He passed out and hit his head on the floor.

Jaynek, this is illogical.  If something is objectively wrong, it’s wrong all the time.  If something is only “potentially” wrong, then it’s not objectively wrong.  A husband being present for a birth is not objectively wrong, 1) because a human birth isn’t a moral issue, 2) he does have an inherent right to see his child, 3) the morality of his presence depends on the circuмstances.  It would only be wrong in a grave situation (ie he knows it would freak out the mother or the doctor has a restraining order against him...or some other weird, but valid, reason).

If what Dr Odent claims is true, that fathers being present during birth is medically inadvisable, then it is against reason for the father to insist on being there.  

One may argue that the claim is not true, but if it is true, it affects the husband's right to be there. Of course it is a moral issue to do things that put one's wife and child at risk. 

Risk is an another way to say potential for harm.  Just because it is not certain to cause harm does not make it OK.  It is only acceptable to take risks when there are proportionate benefits.  The man's emotional satisfaction in witnessing the miracle of birth is not proportionate to a greatly increased risk of C section or the other problems described by Dr Odent.  Whatever inherent right a husband has to be there, it is not prudent to attend the birth under these circuмstances.

I feel it is unśeemly for a women to consistently argue with men.
It is not feminine behaviour but strident feminist behaviour.

A few things, in no particular order -

It used to be more customary that, in a normal circuмstance and not some emergency, a woman did not want her husband present for the birth because she was so unattractive then.  After the birth, it was typical for the mom to want to be beautified and get fixed up - she got her hair brushed, etc. - then the husband could see her and baby who was by then, also often finished with post-birth care.  The wife usually wanted to be presentable and attractive, and especially then if possible.  

In Genesis 3:21 it says:  "Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it."  Sounds a little like a pain killer/anesthetic moment there?

Many of us remember the old days on CathInfo when no gender was obvious.  There were no pink or blue symbols.  One had to guess, if one was that interested - and using just what the member was saying to go by - if the participant was male or female.  The playing field was level.  One could participate just as a Catholic.  Now right on the face of it, there are two teams here, with all the obvious and automatic feelings, sometimes prejudices, that brings to bear.  It is hard now for men to not call out the women members as not being submissive, say, or to not be pre-programmed to often dismiss whatever she may say - or just, plain resent their participation.  And it is hard for the women to not be discouraged as not being taken seriously.  There is an element of the women having to earn respect, instead of automatically having it to start with, before losing it later and deservedly after doing some posting, as is the case with men.  The "gender reveal" on CathInfo has made a difference.