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?
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
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).
Ettorre, E. (2002) Reproductive Genetics, Gender and the Body (Abingdon: Routledge).
Ettorre, E. (2007) Revisioning Women and Drug Use: Gender, Power and the Body (Basingstoke: Palgrave).
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.
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.
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.
Annandale, E. (2009) Women’s Health and Social Change (Abingdon: Routledge).
Bordo, S. (1993) Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture and the Body (Berkeley: University of California Press).
Butler, J. (1993) Bodies that Matter (New York: Routledge).
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.
Davis-Floyd, R. (1994) ‘The Technocratic Body: American Childbirth as Cultural Expression’, Social Science & Medicine, 38 (8), 1125–40.
Duden, B. (1993) Disembodying Women: Perspectives on Pregnancy and the Unborn (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
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.
Ettorre, E. (2002) Reproductive Genetics, Gender and the Body (Abingdon: Routledge).
Ettorre, E. (2007) Revisioning Women and Drug Use: Gender, Power and the Body (Basingstoke: Palgrave).
Farmer, P. (2005) Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor (Berkeley: University of California Press).
George, S. M. (2006) ‘Millions of Missing Girls: From Fetal Sexing to High Technology Sex Selection in India’, Prenatal Diagnosis, 26 (7), 604–9.
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.
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.
Haraway, D. (1997) Modest Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan© Meets_Oncomouse™: Feminism and Technoscience (London: Routledge).
Henley-Einion, A. (2003) ‘The Medicalization of Childbirth’, in C. Squires (ed.), The Social Context of Birth (Oxford, Radcliffe Medical Press), 173–86.
Hopkins, K. (2000) ‘Are Brazilian Women Really Choosing to Deliver by Cesarean?’, Social Science & Medicine, 51 (5), 725–40.
HFEA — Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (2008) Facts and Figures 2006: Fertility Problems and Treatment (London: HFEA).
Iovine, V. (1995) The Girlfriends’ Guide to Pregnancy: Or Everything Your Doctor Won’t Tell You (New York: Pocket Books).
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.
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.
Klawiter, M. (2008) The Biopolitics of Breast Cancer: Changing Cultures of Disease and Activism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
Lorber, J. (1994) Paradoxes of Gender (New Haven: Yale University Press).
Martin, E. (1987) The Woman in the Body: A Cultural Analysis of Reproduction (Boston: Beacon Press).
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.
Martin, P. Y. (2004) ‘Gender as a Social Institution’, Social Forces, 82 (4), 1249–73.
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.
Murphy, S. and M. Rosenbaum (1999) Pregnant Women on Drugs: Combating Stereotypes and Stigma (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press).
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.
NIH — National Institutes of Health (2006) ‘State-of-the-Science-Conference: Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request: Final Statement’, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 107, 1386–97.
NEPHO — North East Public Health Observatory (2002) Drug Misuse in Pregnancy in the Northern and Yorkshire Region (Leeds: NEPHO).
Oakley, A. (1980) Women Confined: Towards a Sociology of Childbirth (Oxford: Martin Robertson & Co).
Oaks, L. (2001) Smoking and Pregnancy: The Politics of Fetal Protection (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press).
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.
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.
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.
Revill, J. (2006) ‘Why Mothers Should Be Offered Caesareans’, The Observer, 5 March, 14.
Rothman, B. K. (1994) The Tentative Pregnancy: Amniocentesis and the Sexual Politics of Motherhood (London: Pandora).
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.
Shildrick, M. (1997) Leaky Bodies and Boundaries: Feminism, Postmodernism and (Bio)ethics (London and New York: Routledge).
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.
Stormer, N. (2000) ‘Prenatal Space’, SIGNS: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 26 (1), 109–44.
Thomas, J. and S. Paranjothy (2001) The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report (London: RCOG Press).
Thompson, C. (2005) Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Turner, B. (1987) Medical Power and Social Knowledge (London: Sage).
Turner, B. (1992) Regulating Bodies: Essays in Medical Sociology (London: Routledge).
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.
Wagner, M. (2000) ‘Choosing Caesarean Section’, The Lancet, 356, 1677–80.
Wagner, M. (2001) ‘Fish Can’t See Water: The Need to Humanise Birth’, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 75 (Suppl.), S25–S37.
Wajcman, J. (1991) Feminism Confronts Technology (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press).
WHO — World Health Organization (1985) ‘Appropriate Technology for Birth’, The Lancet, 326, 436–7.
Young, D. (2006) ‘Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request: Was the NIH Conference Based on a Faulty Premise?’, Birth, 33 (3), 171–4.
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137295408_10
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-01514-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-29540-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social Sciences CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)