The term ‘obstetrical dilemma’ was coined by Washburn in 1960 to describe the trade‐off between selection for a larger birth canal, permitting successful passage of a big‐brained human neonate, and the smaller pelvic dimensions required for bipedal locomotion. His suggested solution to these antagonistic pressures was to give birth prematurely, explaining the unusual degree of neurological and physical immaturity, or secondary altriciality, observed in human infants. This proposed trade‐off has traditionally been offered as the predominant evolutionary explanation for why human childbirth is so challenging, and inherently risky, compared to that of other primates. This perceived difficulty is likely due to the tight fit of fetal to maternal pelvic dimensions along with the convoluted shape of the birth canal and a comparatively low degree of ligamentous flexibility. Although the ideas combined under the obstetrical dilemma hypothesis originated almost a century ago, they have received renewed attention and empirical scrutiny in the last decade, with some researchers advocating complete rejection of the hypothesis and its assumptions. However, the hypothesis is complex because it presently captures several, mutually non‐exclusive ideas: (i) there is an evolutionary trade‐off resulting from opposing selection pressures on the pelvis; (ii) selection favouring a narrow pelvis specifically derives from bipedalism; (iii) human neonates are secondarily altricial because they are born relatively immature to ensure that they fit through the maternal bony pelvis; (iv) as a corollary to the asymmetric selection pressure for a spacious birth canal in females, humans evolved pronounced sexual dimorphism of pelvic shape. Recently, the hypothesis has been challenged on both empirical and theoretical grounds. Here, we appraise the original ideas captured under the ‘obstetrical dilemma’ and their subsequent evolution. We also evaluate complementary and alternative explanations for a tight fetopelvic fit and obstructed labour, including ecological factors related to nutrition and thermoregulation, constraints imposed by the stability of the pelvic floor or by maternal and fetal metabolism, the energetics of bipedalism, and variability in pelvic shape. This reveals that human childbirth is affected by a complex combination of evolutionary, ecological, and biocultural factors, which variably constrain maternal pelvic form and fetal growth. Our review demonstrates that it is unwarranted to reject the obstetrical dilemma hypothesis entirely because several of its fundamental assumptions have not been successfully discounted despite claims to the contrary. As such, the obstetrical dilemma remains a tenable hypothesis that can be used productively to guide evolutionary research.

Compared to other primates, modern humans face high rates of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality during childbirth. Since the early 20th century, this “difficulty” of human parturition has prompted numerous evolutionary explanations, typically assuming antagonistic selective forces acting on maternal and fetal traits, which has been termed the “obstetrical dilemma.” Recently, there has been a growing tendency among some anthropologists to question the difficulty of human childbirth and its evolutionary origin in an antagonistic selective regime. Partly, this stems from the motivation to combat increasing pathologization and overmedicalization of childbirth in industrialized countries. Some authors have argued that there is no obstetrical dilemma at all, and that the difficulty of childbirth mainly results from modern lifestyles and inappropriate and patriarchal obstetric practices. The failure of some studies to identify biomechanical and metabolic constraints on pelvic dimensions is sometimes interpreted as empirical support for discarding an obstetrical dilemma. Here we explain why these points are important but do not invalidate evolutionary explanations of human childbirth. We present robust empirical evidence and solid evolutionary theory supporting an obstetrical dilemma, yet one that is much more complex than originally conceived in the 20th century. We argue that evolutionary research does not hinder appropriate midwifery and obstetric care, nor does it promote negative views of female bodies. Understanding the evolutionary entanglement of biological and sociocultural factors underlying human childbirth can help us to understand individual variation in the risk factors of obstructed labor, and thus can contribute to more individualized maternal care.