Skip to main content

Reproductive Regimes: Governing Gendered Bodies

  • Chapter
The Palgrave Handbook of Gender and Healthcare
  • 1106 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines the intersections between biological and social dimensions of gender and health with special reference to reproduction. We explore the notion of reproductive regimes through the consideration of four case studies that exemplify how contemporary women’s reproductive bodies may engage with biomedicine. A major assumption running throughout the chapter is that, whilst the processes of reproduction may emerge as regulatory regimes for all bodies, women more than men have been viewed and managed as ‘foetal containers’. Today there are social and cultural forces that afford pregnant women the opportunity to make ‘choices’ that challenge this notion of passivity. As the principle of patient choice becomes widespread in public and private healthcare systems across the developed countries of the western world and feminism increasingly operates in arenas of entitlement and individualism nevertheless the question remains: How is women’s agency constrained by gendered disciplinary processes in the field of reproduction?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

Key reading

  • Duden, B. (1993) Disembodying Women: Perspectives on Pregnancy and the Unborn (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ettorre, E. (2002) Reproductive Genetics, Gender and the Body (Abingdon: Routledge).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ettorre, E. (2007) Revisioning Women and Drug Use: Gender, Power and the Body (Basingstoke: Palgrave).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, C., J. Neilson, V. Singleton, G. Gyte, A. Hart, M. Gabbay and T. Lavender (2009) ‘Choice and Birth Method: Mixed-method Study of Caesarean Delivery for Maternal Request’, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 116 (7), 886–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ACOG — American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee Opinion (2003) ‘Surgery and Patient Choice: The Ethics of Decision Making’, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 102, 101–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Akour, N., M. Khassawneh, Y. Khader and E. Dahl (2009) ‘Sex Preference and Interest in Preconception Sex Selection: A Survey among Pregnant Women in the North of Jordan’, Human Reproduction, 1 (1), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annandale, E. (2009) Women’s Health and Social Change (Abingdon: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordo, S. (1993) Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture and the Body (Berkeley: University of California Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (1993) Bodies that Matter (New York: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chigbu, C. O., I. V. Ezeome and G. C. Iloabachie (2006) ‘Cesarean Section on Request in a Developing Country’, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 96 (11), 54–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis-Floyd, R. (1994) ‘The Technocratic Body: American Childbirth as Cultural Expression’, Social Science & Medicine, 38 (8), 1125–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duden, B. (1993) Disembodying Women: Perspectives on Pregnancy and the Unborn (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumont, A., L. Bernis, M. H. Bouvier-Colle and G. Bréart for the MOMA study group (2001) ‘CS rate for Maternal Indication in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review’, The Lancet, 358, 1328–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ettorre, E. (2002) Reproductive Genetics, Gender and the Body (Abingdon: Routledge).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ettorre, E. (2007) Revisioning Women and Drug Use: Gender, Power and the Body (Basingstoke: Palgrave).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, P. (2005) Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor (Berkeley: University of California Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • George, S. M. (2006) ‘Millions of Missing Girls: From Fetal Sexing to High Technology Sex Selection in India’, Prenatal Diagnosis, 26 (7), 604–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, J, M. and H. A. Baston (2007) ‘Have Women Become More Willing to Accept Obstetric Interventions and Does This Relate to Mode of Birth. Data from a Prospective Study’, Birth, 34 (1), 6–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. L. and E. R. van Teijlingen (2006) ‘A Qualitative Study of an Integrated Maternity, Drugs and Social Care Service for Drug-using Women’, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 6, 19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1997) Modest Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan© Meets_Oncomouse™: Feminism and Technoscience (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Henley-Einion, A. (2003) ‘The Medicalization of Childbirth’, in C. Squires (ed.), The Social Context of Birth (Oxford, Radcliffe Medical Press), 173–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, K. (2000) ‘Are Brazilian Women Really Choosing to Deliver by Cesarean?’, Social Science & Medicine, 51 (5), 725–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HFEA — Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (2008) Facts and Figures 2006: Fertility Problems and Treatment (London: HFEA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Iovine, V. (1995) The Girlfriends’ Guide to Pregnancy: Or Everything Your Doctor Won’t Tell You (New York: Pocket Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, C., L. Baker and T. Lavender (2006) ‘Systematic Review of Nulliparous Women’s Views of Planned Cesarean Birth: The Missing Component in the Debate about a Term Cephalic Trial’, Birth, 33 (3), 229–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, C., J. Neilson, V. Singleton, G. Gyte, A. Hart, M. Gabbay and T. Lavender (2009) ‘Choice and Birth Method: Mixed-method Study of Caesarean Delivery for Maternal Request’, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 116 (7), 886–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klawiter, M. (2008) The Biopolitics of Breast Cancer: Changing Cultures of Disease and Activism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorber, J. (1994) Paradoxes of Gender (New Haven: Yale University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, E. (1987) The Woman in the Body: A Cultural Analysis of Reproduction (Boston: Beacon Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, E. (1991) ‘The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16 (31), 485–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, P. Y. (2004) ‘Gender as a Social Institution’, Social Forces, 82 (4), 1249–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, L. and E. George (1998) ‘Baby’s First Picture: The Cyborg Fetus of Ultrasound Imaging’, in R. Davis-Floyd and J. Dumit (eds), Cyborg Babies: From Techno-sex to Techno Tots (London: Routledge), 105–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, S. and M. Rosenbaum (1999) Pregnant Women on Drugs: Combating Stereotypes and Stigma (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, S. F. and M. A. Elston (2005) ‘The Promotion of Private Health Insurance and Its Implications for the Social Organisation of Healthcare: A Case Study of Private Sector Obstetric Practice in Chile’, Sociology of Health and Illness, 27 (6), 701–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NIH — National Institutes of Health (2006) ‘State-of-the-Science-Conference: Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request: Final Statement’, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 107, 1386–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NEPHO — North East Public Health Observatory (2002) Drug Misuse in Pregnancy in the Northern and Yorkshire Region (Leeds: NEPHO).

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakley, A. (1980) Women Confined: Towards a Sociology of Childbirth (Oxford: Martin Robertson & Co).

    Google Scholar 

  • Oaks, L. (2001) Smoking and Pregnancy: The Politics of Fetal Protection (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, J. and M. Shildrick (1999) ‘Openings on the Body: A Critical Introduction’, in J. Price and M. Shildrick (eds), Feminist Theory and the Body (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pursley-Crotteau, S. and P. N. Stern (1996) ‘Creating a New Life: Dimensions of Temperance in Perinatal Cocaine Crack Users’, Qualitative Health Research, 6 (3), 350–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resta, R. (1999) ‘A Brief History of the Pedigree in Human Genetics’, in R. A. Peel, (ed.), Human Pedigree Studies (London: Galton Institute), 62–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Revill, J. (2006) ‘Why Mothers Should Be Offered Caesareans’, The Observer, 5 March, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, B. K. (1994) The Tentative Pregnancy: Amniocentesis and the Sexual Politics of Motherhood (London: Pandora).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenker, J. G. and J. M. Cain (1999) ‘FIGO Committee Report: FIGO Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women’s Health, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics’, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 64 (3), 317–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shildrick, M. (1997) Leaky Bodies and Boundaries: Feminism, Postmodernism and (Bio)ethics (London and New York: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. (2004) ‘Negotiating Elective Caesarean Section: An Obstetric Team Perspective’, in M. Kirkham (ed.), Informed Choice in Maternity Care (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan), 211–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stormer, N. (2000) ‘Prenatal Space’, SIGNS: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 26 (1), 109–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. and S. Paranjothy (2001) The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report (London: RCOG Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, C. (2005) Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, B. (1987) Medical Power and Social Knowledge (London: Sage).

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, B. (1992) Regulating Bodies: Essays in Medical Sociology (London: Routledge).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, I. (2005) ‘Pregnant Beauty: The Changing Visual and Cultural Practices of Pregnant Embodiment’, paper presented at the Maternal Bodies Workshop, IAS Lancaster, 2 November 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, M. (2000) ‘Choosing Caesarean Section’, The Lancet, 356, 1677–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, M. (2001) ‘Fish Can’t See Water: The Need to Humanise Birth’, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 75 (Suppl.), S25–S37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wajcman, J. (1991) Feminism Confronts Technology (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO — World Health Organization (1985) ‘Appropriate Technology for Birth’, The Lancet, 326, 436–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, D. (2006) ‘Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request: Was the NIH Conference Based on a Faulty Premise?’, Birth, 33 (3), 171–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2012 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ettorre, E., Kingdon, C. (2012). Reproductive Regimes: Governing Gendered Bodies. In: Kuhlmann, E., Annandale, E. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Gender and Healthcare. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137295408_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics