The Janus Face of Infertility in the Global North and South: Reviewing Feminist Contributions to the Debate
This chapter offers an account of the historical emergence of the ‘Janus face’ of infertility in the global North and South, focusing on the period from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s as a particularly active time of development in infertility policy, practice, and debate. It details feminist contributions to discussions on gender development in the Third World that focus on fertility rates, reproductive health services, and population control, and explores feminist contributions to understanding the role of medical technologies in overcoming infertility, and the consequent revolution in understandings of kinship and conception, particularly in the First World. Drawing on Nancy Fraser’s thesis that the movement for women’s liberation has become entangled with neoliberal efforts that encourage ‘disorganized’ globalizing effects, this chapter explores the contribution of gender development and gender justice approaches to differential understandings about the provision of, and access to, infertility treatments in local and global contexts.
KeywordsDevelopment Feminism Fertility Population Stratified reproduction
- E. Oluwole Akande, ‘Affordable Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Developing Countries: Pros and Cons’, Human Reproduction, 1 (July 2008), 12–14.Google Scholar
- Sarah Franklin, Biological Relatives: IVF, Stem Cells and the Future of Kinship (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
- Nancy Fraser, Fortunes of Feminism: From State-Managed Capitalism to Neoliberal Crisis (London: Verso, 2013).Google Scholar
- Danielle L. Herbert, Jayne C. Lucke and Annette J. Dobson, ‘Infertility in Australia Circa 1980: An Historical Population Perspective on the Uptake of Fertility Treatment by Australian Women Born in 1946–51 Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 33:6 (2009), 507–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Maya N. Mascarenhas, Seth R. Flaxman, Ties Boerman, Sheryl Vanderpoel and Gretchen A. Stevens, ‘National, Regional, and Global Trends in Infertility Prevalence Since 1990: A Systematic Analysis of 277 Health Surveys’, PLoS Med, 9:12(2012): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3525527/.
- Michelle Murphy, Seizing the Means of Reproduction: Entanglements of Feminisms, Health and Technoscience (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
- Elianne Riska, ‘Gender and Medicalization and Biomedicalization Theories’, in Adele E. Clarke, Laura Mamo, Jennifer Ruth Fosket, Jennifer R. Fischman and Janet. K. Shim (eds), Biomedicalization: Technoscience, Health and Illness in the U.S. (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010), 147–70.Google Scholar
- Shea O. Rutstein, and Iqbal H. Shah, Infecundity, Infertility, and Childlessness in Developing Countries: DHS Comparative Reports No. 9 (Elianne Riska, 2004): www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/infertility/DHS-CR9.pdf.
- Sama-Resource Group for Women and Health, ‘Birthing a Market: A Study on Commercial Surrogacy’ (New Delhi, 2012): http://www.communityhealth.in/~commun26/wiki/images/e/e8/Sama_Birthing_A_Market.pdf.
- Charis M. Thompson, ‘Fertile Ground: Feminists Theorize Infertility’, in Marcia C. Inhorn and Frank van Balen (eds), Infertility Around the Globe: New Thinking on Childlessness, Gender and Reproductive Technologies (Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA, and London: University of California Press, 2002), 52–78.Google Scholar
- United Nations, Framework of Actions for the Follow-up to the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development Beyond 2014 Report of the Secretary-General (New York: United Nations, 2014): http://www.unfpa.org/publications/framework-actions-follow-programme-action-international-conference-population-and.
- Frank van Balen and Marcia C. Inhorn, ‘Introduction: Interpreting Infertility: A View from the Social Sciences’, in Frank van Balen and Marcia C. Inhorn (eds), Infertility Around the Globe: New Thinking on Childlessness, Gender and Reproductive Technologies (Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA, and London: University of California Press, 2002), 3–32.Google Scholar