I wouldn't say that having the husband there is necessarily feminist but I can see feminist influence in the way that some people treat it. The birth belongs to the woman and the husband is the servant who follows her orders. If she would like to swear and curse at him, that is perfectly fine.  Men (and even women) who don't want to do it this way are shamed and ridiculed.

I never yelled at or cursed my husband, and never felt the need to. If anything he helped me stay calmer. 
So you have some kind of twisted view of all women mistreating their birth partner/husband while laboring. And that’s likely been fueled by seeing that senario portrayed in movies and television. 
Unless maybe you’ve witnessed it firsthand and more than once? Because you do sound like you know the whole history of fathers during birth, and even though you haven’t provided anything historical that goes back further than 100 or so years. We do have 6000 years of history you know. Why do you keep speaking for the whole of history on this?

Here is an article about a childbirth expert, commenting on the issue from a medical perspective:

For many men, attending the birth of a child is a momentous and emotional occasion. However, one of the world's leading obstetricians says the father's presence can lead to his partner needing a caesarean delivery, and even to marriage break-ups and mental illness.

Michel Odent, a childbirth specialist, also believes the mother-to-be's labour can be longer, more painful and more complicated because she senses his anxiety and becomes nervous. Babies' arrival in the world would be more straightforward if women were left alone with only a midwife to help them, as they used to be, Odent will tell the Royal College of Midwives' annual conference in Manchester next month, where he is a guest speaker.

"The ideal birth environment involves no men in general. Having been involved for more than 50 years in childbirths in homes and hospitals in France, England and Africa, the best environment I know for an easy birth is when there is nobody around the woman in labour apart from a silent, low-profile and experienced midwife – and no doctor and no husband, nobody else," Odent told the Observer. "In this situation, more often than not, the birth is easier and faster than what happens when there are other people around, especially male figures – husbands and doctors."

The presence of men during their partner's labour produce adrenaline, which makes the woman tense and slows her production of the hormone oxytocin, which is vital for birth, says Odent. "If she can't release oxytocin she can't have effective contractions, and everything becomes more difficult. Labour becomes longer, more painful and more difficult because the hormonal balance in the woman is disturbed by the environment that's not appropriate because of the presence of the man." What he calls "the masculinisation of the birth environment" helps to explain the fact that 24% of women in the UK now have a caesarean section, he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/18/men-birth-labour-baby

JayneK has been making the best comments on this thread, supported by reason and historical facts, while her opponents got nothing but emotive babbling. 

Jayne, do you know of the abuses of women during those times? About women being thrown about in sheets during labor? About twilight births? Or when women would be tied down to tables to keep from moving? It was when men started attended those stopped. It also helped that women found their voices to speak up because their husbands were there. You talk about those times like they are ideal, but those are also times when women were hurt the most.

The twilight births and being tied down were practices of the time immediately before husbands began attending births.  I have already identified the 50s as being a time of horrible birthing practices. I even said it twice. But these have nothing to do with the women-only births that I consider the ideal.  

Yes, it was helpful for men to attend births in order to stop the awful hospital procedures going on.  It is still sometimes necessary for men to be present to protect their wife from the hospitals.  But this does not make men attending childbirth the ideal.  It is something needed to deal with a disordered situation.

This is what I think is the ideal: The woman goes through labour and delivery in a home-like, comfortable, quiet room with one or two trained female attendants.  There are medical services immediately available nearby in case of emergencies.  The husband is also nearby and perhaps visits with her a bit in the earlier stages of labour depending on how she is handling it.  As soon as the baby is born (assuming he does not require medical attention) the father joins mother and child while she breastfeeds the baby for the first time.  The parents and baby are allowed to bond for a while.  Mother and baby get cleaned up a bit and dressed.  The father may need some attention too if it has been a long labour.  At this point, any older children from the family can come to greet the new sibling, if practical (depending on what time of day it is, etc.)  There should be an adult other than the parents in charge of the older children at this time. This could be a good time for a snack with the whole family if the mother has not eaten earlier.  The mother spends the next two weeks resting, looking after her personal needs, and feeding the baby, while others look after her usual duties.

JayneK has been making the best comments on this thread, supported by reason and historical facts, while her opponents got nothing but emotive babbling.

#Quid/Croix/Judith

Traditionally, it was taken for granted that men would not be present so nobody ever mentioned such a right. It is only speculation that they believed this right existed.

And it's nothing but speculation on your part that no right existed simply because husbands, either out of custom or our of personal preference, traditionally opted out of being present at the birth.  You have to demonstrate that men were barred from the woman's birth out of principle vs. merely not present in practice ... for one practical or customary consideration or another.  I'm sure that this wasn't true 100% of the time either ... even if it was the general practice.  At no point has the Church or any moral theologian taught that it's somehow inappropriate, wrong, or a violation of the mother's dignity for a husband/father to be present at the birth.  Consequently, it's a husband's right (deriving from his general authority) to be present ... until proven otherwise.

Every father has a right to watch his child be born and brought into the world.  It's a monumental event in the life of the child, and the father has every right to witness it if he so chooses.  It's HIS child also, not just the wife's/mother's.

And the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that it's a violation of "right reason" ... objectively.  Default is always in favor of the husband's authority.  This is not a subjective standard either.  One woman might protest that a husband limiting her budget might be not in harmony with right reason or the dignity due to a wife.  Subjective considerations such as an individual woman's protest do not suffice to meet this standard.  Every woman who disobeys her husband would make that claim.  You have at no point demonstrated that a husband's presence is a violation of her dignity or of right reason.

Let's say that a husband wanted to watch his wife going to the bathroom.  Understandably she feels very uncomfortable with this.  How would we objectively demonstrate that this is a violation of her dignity?  And yet I think that most people would agree that it was.

Anyhow, as I posted earlier, we have one of the top obstetricians in the world, Michael Odent saying that the husband's presence is detrimental to the birth process, with potential for serious physical and emotional complications.  Therefore it is objectively contrary to right reason for the husband to be present.  Therefore he does not have a right to be there.