Dixon writes her ethnography in a way that directly acknowledges the subversion of expectations. For example, on the very first page of the Introduction, she discusses how pharmaceuticals and syringes are not something that you might expect when you think of “midwifery.” I believe that this is, in part, to show the amount of inherent bias and misunderstanding towards “non-mainstream” medical care. However, despite the misunderstanding and the Mexican government’s attempts to undermine the practice of midwifery, the practice still evolves and prevails. I also thought it was incredibly interesting how Dixon addresses she needed extensive ethnographic fieldwork in order to understand the historical context of midwifery in Mexico. Typically, I feel like medical care and treatment are both things that are well documented. However, because of the systematic attempts to devalue the practice, the ethnographic fieldwork seemed fundamental and instrumental in researching this. I also really liked her acknowledgment that healthcare, in an attempt to globalize it and make it universal, does not address alternative forms of health care and also the underlying structural problems and needs of different countries (p. 9). This ethnography, in general, made me think about our class activity where we discussed remedies for the common cold and saw how many different remedies we considered just within the class. Furthermore, what remedies are considered atypical or not mainstream, as Dixon writes, are seen with far more vitriol than what is deemed as a remedy by the dominant healthcare system. Following this reading, I am curious about how midwifery is viewed in other countries. In the United States, I know that there are “natural births” and “doulas” that can have medical degrees and training and Dixon also talks about the ever-evolving field in Mexico, but I am curious about this practice cross-culturally.