The Social and Cultural Relations of Reproduction



University of WarwickDepartment of Sociology2013-14ModuleTransformations: Gender, Reproduction and Contemporary SocietyLecturers Caroline Wright and Maria Do Mar Pereira& TutorsIntroductionThis module examines the significance of gender in shaping, and being shaped by, contemporary human reproduction. Based on feminist perspectives, the module challenges taken-for-granted assumptions and highlights the ways in which reproduction is being transformed. The module has a predominantly UK focus, though it seeks to incorporate global perspectives.? We begin by asking ‘why do we have children?’ (and why do we not?), and ‘who needs children?’. We then explore the links between parenthood and gender identity and the diverse patterns of biological and social reproduction and parenting that characterise the contemporary era, including step-parents, disabled parents, single parents, gay and lesbian parents, and, later in the module, adoptive parents. Throughout the module attention is paid to the way in which narratives of class, ‘race’/ethnicity, age, sexuality and (dis)ability, as well as gender, inform ideas about who’s ‘fit’ to be a parent in the 21st century.? We examine women’s embodied experiences of pregnancy and birth in a technological age and consider whether and how they differ from those of the father-to-be. Particular attention is paid to the institution of motherhood and definitions of the ‘good’ mother, including contemporary debates about breastfeeding. In considering the timing of parenthood, it becomes clear that tighter social boundaries govern the ‘right time’ to become a mother than they do the ‘right time’ to become a father. Technologies of reproduction that seek to limit fertility by breaking the link between heterosex and reproduction are explored, such as contraception and abortion. We also consider the phenomenon and experience of infertility, and reproductive technologies that are designed to overcome or bypass it, such as IVF. The module concludes by considering the politics and ethics of the new genetics of reproduction that IVF has partly enabled, including gamete donation, saviour siblings and full surrogacy. ?? Autumn Term Week 1Introduction: Defining the Terms Week 2Why Do We Have Children? Week 3Who Owns Women’s Bodies? Who Needs Children? Week 4Femininity and Motherhood: Towards an Uncoupling?Week 5Masculinity and Fatherhood: Beyond the Breadwinner Role? Week 6Reading Week Week 7Beyond the Nuclear Family: Can Parenting ‘Be’ What Parenting ‘Is’?Week 8Embodied Experiences of Pregnancy in a Technological Age Week 9Giving Birth to Children and Mothers Week 10The Feminist Politics of Infant Feeding: Is ‘Breast Best’?Spring Term Week 11Social and Cultural Politics of AdoptionWeek 12Timing ParenthoodWeek 13Who Manages Fertility? The Politics of Contraception Week 14Whose Body Is It Anyway? The Politics of Abortion Week 15Reproductive Disruptions: InfertilityWeek 16Reading Week Week 17Group Presentations Week Week 18IVF and Gamete DonationWeek 19Genetics: Our Reproductive Futures?Week 20Surrogacy: Just Any Other Contract or the Dehumanisation of Women’s Reproductive Labour?Summer TermTwo weeks of revision workshops and seminars. Learning OutcomesBy the end of the module students should have an understanding of:The significance of gender in shaping contemporary human reproduction, and being shaped by contemporary human reproduction.The diversity of gendered reproduction across time and space and the ways in which it is cross-cut by other social variables and identities such as social class, age, (dis)ability, ‘race’/ethnicity, sexuality. Key concepts in approaches to the politics and theory of generational reproduction in interdisciplinary feminist scholarship, in its engagement with sociological and political theory and popular culture.Key controversies in social life about who should reproduce, when and how, together with women’s and men’s own experiences of reproduction and parenting in diverse contexts.Constructions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ parenting, and how they are gendered.The main constraints and incentives that impinge on reproductive practices and the gender division of labour within them, and the changed forms that have emerged in the face of changes in reproductive technology, in women’s education, and women’s and men’s participation in labour markets in modern society, in comparative perspective.The fragmentation of parenthood, such that we can distinguish the genetic, gestational and social mother, and the genetic and social father, and the social and cultural implications.The complexities of reprogenetics, including the ethical tensions between seeking to enhance quality of life and erasing disability.The complexities of sharing reproductive capacities, including surrogacy and gamete donation.The interconnections between generational reproduction and ‘social reproduction’ in the more extended sense – the reproduction of social hierarchies and relations of power, and the formation and boundary-maintenance of social identities such as those based on class, ‘race’, ethnicity and nation.Cognitive SkillsIn the process of developing an advanced understanding of the substantive aspects of generational and social reproduction, students will also acquire the ability to:Assess critically competing identifications of and perspectives on the diverse forms of contemporary social and cultural relations of generational and social reproduction and parenting.Reflect critically on taken-for-granted assumptions about gender and reproduction.Locate, retrieve, process and evaluate a wide range of materials about parenting and social reproduction in (post)modern societies.Evaluate competing explanations and perspectives on the processes and outcomes of modes of reproduction and parenting, drawing on the above range of materials, including cultural representations, using appropriate argument and evidence.Make scholarly presentations verbal and written, on the social and cultural relations of generational and social reproduction and the issues surrounding them.Teaching, Learning and Assessment MethodsThe following learning and teaching methods are designed to equip students with an advanced understanding of substantive knowledge and cognitive skills relevant to generational and social reproduction:A framework of 18 lectures that establish the module’s outer limits and internal logic.Weekly seminars for structured discussions, including student-initiated and collaborative short presentations, on specific topics.3.A group project running from mid-Autumn term, focussing on a chosen theme, to be presented during week 7 of the Spring term.4.One formative, non-assessed essay and one formative piece of group project work.Self-directed individual and collaborative study in the library and on the internet, in preparation for seminars, projects and written work.Two weeks of teaching and learning dedicated to revision in Term 3.LecturesLectures have been designed to provide an introduction to each week’s topic and an overview of some of the key concepts and issues at stake. They are intended to stimulate your interest and orient you for the core reading, and are certainly not all you would need to know about a topic. A handout for each lecture will be available from the module home-page from the weekend prior, for you to print out and bring to the lecture or access electronically during the lecture. This will include key ideas in order to limit the amount you have to write down at speed during the lecture; the intention is that you are then freer to listen to the lecture and annotate your handout with additional material in order to make it work for you. Transformations lectures have also been designed to include regular student participation, in order to engage and maintain your interest and to prevent the lecture becoming a passive transfer of information. Some students will choose to read the core reading/viewing/listening in advance of the lecture, and then perhaps return to them after the lecture for a second reading. Others will prefer to leave the core readings until after the lecture. If you miss a lecture for any reason then you can access the ‘bare bones’ from the online handout. It is important that lectures start on time so please be prompt.Seminars Seminar attendance is a compulsory requirement of your course and if you are unable to attend a seminar for any reason then you should e-mail your seminar tutor in advance to explain. Seminar registers are kept and form part of the University-wide procedures for monitoring student attendance (see Undergraduate Handbook for more details). Preparation for seminars is essential and comprises attending the lecture, completing the core reading, making notes on the core reading/viewing/listening and making notes in relation to the seminar questions posed. For particular seminars and as arranged in advance students may also need to prepare presentations before the seminar to give during the seminar, or complete other exercises. Seminars are designed to be highly participatory and you need to be prepared to play a full role. The seminar tutor serves as a guide to particular issues and to structure activities, but not to provide the main content. Students are reminded that they will need to bring to each seminar the relevant lecture notes, core reading and notes, and their module handbook. It is important that seminars start on time so please be prompt.Summative Assessment Methods (which measure learning outcomes and determine the final mark)Taking account of any upper limit imposed by the University on the proportion of a student’s work that may be formally assessed outside conventional examinations, students on this module may choose one of the following:Answering three questions in a 3-hour, closed-book, written examination;Answering 2 questions in a 2-hour-closed-book, written examination AND submitting 1 piece of assessed work of 3000 words developed from the group project;Submitting 1 assessed essay of 3000 words AND 1 piece of assessed work of 3000 words developed from the group project.Details of assessed project and essay work will be provided by week 10 of the Autumn term at the latest, on the module web-site. Please note that summative project and essay work is submitted anonymously; make sure your name is not in the document, or document file name.Your attention is drawn to departmental procedures on submission, deadlines, penalties and extensions – see the Undergraduate Handbook for details. Please follow the full guidance in the Undergraduate Handbook and PSP about presentation, referencing etc.Formative Work (used to provide feedback on your progress, completion is compulsory)Please note that all formative work should be submitted to your seminar tutor at the start of your seminar in the week it is due. If you have a problem meeting the deadline then you must contact your seminar tutor about this before the deadline.Due in at the start of your seminar in week 7 (week beginning 11 November 2013):A class essay of 2,000 words, the title to be chosen from the list below:Why should sociologists who are interested in gender also be interested in human reproduction? Critically evaluate explanations given in sociological, feminist and popular accounts of why women and men have children. What claims, if any, do the following groups make over women’s reproductive capacities, and how valid are their claims: male partners; extended family members; the nation-state? To what extent does femininity rely on motherhood and to what extent does masculinity rely on fatherhood?How is the prevailing concept of the good parent gendered?You are encouraged to go beyond the UK where possible in answering your chosen question, and should always specify if your discussion is specific to a particular location.A hard copy of your essay should be submitted to your seminar tutor, pages numbered and stapled and with your name on. The full title of your essay should be reproduced accurately and in full at the start. Please follow the full guidance in the Undergraduate Handbook and PSP about presentation, referencing etc.In line with the University’s policy of providing feedback on formative work within 20 working days of receipt, work that is submitted on time will be returned with a mark and comments before the end of the Autumn term. Due in at the start of your seminar in week 17 (week beginning 18 February 2013)A group submission of your project work (ie. one submission per group). If you use Powerpoint then submission is a hard copy print-out of your group’s slides with your notes, stapled and with your group members and topic named on the front. Note that time constraints may prevent you presenting all of your group work, but you should submit it all for comments. One person in the group needs to take responsibility for making the submission. In line with the University’s policy of providing feedback on formative work within 20 working days of receipt, work that is submitted on time will be returned with group feedback before the end of the Spring term. Core Reading/Viewing/ListeningCore readings are identified for each week and need to be read before the relevant seminar, and for some weeks there is also core viewing and/or listening. All the core readings are available electronically as well as in hard copy in the Library. During the seminar you should have access to your notes and to a printed or electronic copy of the core reading or, if that is not possible, very detailed notes. There are three types of electronic readings that are accessed via the Library: scanned in extracts from books; e-journal articles; and e-books. Other resources can be accessed directly from the internet using the link provided.You will need Adobe Reader to access resources electronically, and you can download it free if you don’t already have it on your machine: in ExtractsThese are chapters of books available via the Library’s dedicated site for e-resources for this module: You will need to ensure that you are registered for the module via eMR in order to have access to electronic extracts, and you must also complete Web Sign-on. Then you simply look for the reference you require (they are arranged alphabetically by author’s surname). It will open as a pdf and the chapter follows on from the Copyright Notice. You can read it on screen but you will also need to print a copy to bring to the seminar or have screen access during the seminar, and you might also want to save a copy (for your own personal use only).E-journal articles The link provided will take you to the Library’s catalogue site for that e-journal. You will then need to select a database to access it through, checking that it has the relevant year. You will need to be logged in and then the database archive will open and you need to select the Vol. and/or No. of the journal and page down for the article. You can click to open the pdf, which may take a few seconds, but the interface and reliability does vary. It is recommended instead to save the pdf to your hard drive or data-stick (right click, select ‘save target as’, then choose a directory and give the file a meaningful name). You can then open the saved document, print it, search it etc. E-booksThe link provided after the reference in the reading list will take you to the Library’s catalogue site for that e-book. You will be prompted to enter your Warwick login to access the book. Once you have opened the book you need to search for the relevant chapter. You can read this on-screen and make notes but if possible you must also print a copy to bring to the class (for Net Library books see the option at the top of the page (very small) or have screen access during the seminar. Palgrave ebooks allow the whole book to be downloaded. BobNational TV programmesFor some weeks, the list of core or additional viewings will include TV series which are available to screen via Box of Broadcasts, or BobNational. BobNational is a website that hosts TV programmes recorded for higher education institutions to use for learning purposes. It contains an impressive amount of relevant documentaries, films and series. To browse BobNational, go to To watch on BobNational one of the programmes suggested in this handbook, follow these steps:Go to In the box on the top left-hand side (“Where are you from?”), type “Warwick”, select University of Warwick and then click “Go to log in”Insert your Warwick username and passwordIf this is your first time using BobNational, you may be asked to create a user account, a process which is free, simple and quickYou now have two options: You can copy the relevant website address from the handbook and paste it on the address bar on your browser, to go directly to the relevant video.ORYou can use the search box on the top left-hand side to search for the title of the programme.Additional Reading/ViewingAll the additional readings listed below each topic are available in the library or online and should be used when doing more in depth work, eg. for a seminar presentation, class essay, group project, assessed essay or revision for exams.Film ResourcesDebates, anxieties and practices of gendered reproduction and parenting are represented in many recent and not so recent films. While there is no formal screening of films as part of the module, your attention is drawn to the following list of films, some of which you may know already and might think again about in the context of the module’s concerns, and others which you might consider watching if you’re working on the particular topic. There is also an opportunity to do a group project on reproduction in film (see below).About a Boy (motherhood and fatherhood)Away We Go (pregnancy)Baby Mama (lone motherhood; surrogacy)Chutney Popcorn (surrogacy, lesbian parenting)Flirting with Disaster (adoption, gay and lesbian parenting)Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistlestop Café (lesbian parenting)If These Walls Could Talk (abortion)If These Walls Could Talk 2 (lesbian parenting)Junior (male ‘pregnancy’)Juno (unplanned pregnancy)Made in India (surrogacy)Making Grace (donor sperm, lesbian parenting)Maybe Baby (infertility, IUI)My Sister’s Keeper (saviour siblings Mother and Child (adoption)Paternal Instinct (gay parenting, surrogacy)Revolutionary Road (abortion)Secrets and Lies (adoption)Stepmom (step-parenting)The Blind Side (adoption)The Handmaid’s Tale (surrogacy)The Kids are Alright (donor sperm/ lesbian parenting)The Magdalene Sisters (lone mothers)The Next Best Thing (gay parenting)The Other Woman (step-parenting, SIDS)Then She Found Me (miscarriage, IUI, adoption)Three Men and a Baby (masculinity and fatherhood)Up (infertility)Vera Drake (abortion)Violet’s Visit (gay parenting)We are Dad (adoption/fostering, gay parenting)What to Expect When You’re Expecting (pregnancy, adoption, parenting)This list is by no means comprehensive and we’d welcome your suggestions for additions to it.As sociologists it’s important to view films critically, paying attention to the genre, type-casting, visual style, music as well as the plot. We need to ask questions about what dominant readings of an issue the film might promote; what counter readings are possible; which characters we’re invited to identify with; how the fictional portrayal of an event links to what we know from sociological research about the event’s likelihood and how people experience it. Above all we need to remember that films are highly crafted and marketed commodities and that they are far from a straightforward representation of life. Here is a sample of literature to guide you:Benyahia, Sarah Casey (2012) Doing Film Studies, Hoboken: Taylor and Francis (esp. section 3)Curran, James (Ed.) (2010) Media and Society, London: Bloomsbury Academic (5th edition) Print Book (esp first 5 chapters)Hollow, Joanne, Peter Hutchings and Mark Jancovich (Eds) (2000) The Film Studies Reader, London: ArnoldMcCabe, Janet (2004) Feminist Film Studies: Writing the Woman into Cinema, London; New York: Wallflower Radner, Hilary and Rebecca Stringer (Eds) (2011) Feminism at the Movies: Understanding Gender in Contemporary Popular Cinema, Oxford: New York: Routledge (includes a chapter on the films Juno and Baby Mama)Other Resources from Popular CultureTV series past and present, autobiographies and novels can also provide insight into contemporary pre-occupations with gender and reproduction. These are too numerous to list here; the same requirement for critical sociological engagement applies as to films. To browse BobNational for TV series, go to Group ProjectIssues of and anxieties about reproduction are highly topical and frequently in the news; reproductive issues are also often the target of public policy. During this module you will be working on a group project that involves researching media, popular and public policy debate on one of a list of themes and integrating it with the academic literature and relevant statistics. The aims of the group project are as follows:to provoke your awareness of and interest in reproductive issues in all aspects of life, not just when directly studying for this module;to enhance your independent research skills and provide an opportunity for you to pursue what interests you the most;to develop your group-work and presentation skills;to thread one piece of assessed work through the module at an early stage, to be developed from your group project, easing the pressure of multiple deadlines after the Easter vacation.For 13-14 the list of themes for the group project is as follows:Gender Identity and ParentingNon-Nuclear FamiliesPregnancy and/or ChildbirthBreastfeedingTiming ParenthoodReproduction in Popular Culture (Film-TV-Fiction)(Dis)ability and Reproduction‘Race’ and ReproductionAdoption and/or Step-parentingWithin your group’s theme you can specialize further, for example in 1 you could focus on masculinity and fathering; in 2 you could focus on gay and lesbian parents. Your group will be set up through your seminar toward the end of term 1, when you will also be provided with a Group Project Guide, and you are encouraged to meet regularly with your group as the module proceeds to work on your project. The Learning Grid offers an excellent venue for such meetings. Presentations will be given by all groups in week 7 of the Spring term, after the reading week, using both the lecture and seminar slots. You will also submit a hard copy of your group project work immediately after its presentation and will be given formative group feedback based both on the written submission and the presentation given (see formative work above). One piece of assessed work for this module will draw on aspects of your group project, although the final written output needs to be your own work.Reading List and Seminar QuestionsWeek 1 Introduction: Defining the TermsCaroline WrightThis introductory lecture will look at the ‘keywords’ in sociological and feminist discussions of reproduction. Many of these circulate in the language of ‘common sense’. Their meanings may seem obvious. But these meaning have shifted and become more difficult to define as the social relations and the technology of reproduction have been transformed, and as ‘the family’ has grown more diverse, challenging traditional attitudes towards ‘family values’. These terms include:reproduction (social and generational)reproductive rightspatriarchyfamily/household systemmotherhood/fatherhoodgestational parent/birth parent/social parentnew reproductive technologiesWe will also consider a range of recent headlines about reproduction, which characterise the extent of the debate and the anxiety it is currently generating.SeminarWhat are reproductive rights?QuestionsHow do you think the following variables influence the exercise of reproductive rights: place/location; age; religion; sexuality; gender?What have you done today to contribute to the daily reproduction of human life?What experience do you have of the fragmentation of parenting? (eg. genetic/gestational/social parents?)Could sex be history? Should sex be history?Core ReadingCochrane, Kira (2012) ‘Why sex could be history’, The Guardian, 18 August, Available online: , Lara M. (2006) Reproductive Rights in a Global Context, Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press (Introduction, pp. 1-10)Available as an E-extract:, Janet (2004) Gender and Development, London: Routledge (ch. 3 ‘Reproduction’, pp. 47-74) Available as an E-book: ReadingAnnandale, Ellen (2009) Women’s Health and Social Change, Abingdon; New York: Routledge (ch. 4 ‘Women and Reproduction’)AndermahrEds, Sonya et al (Eds) (2000) A Glossary of Feminist Theory, London: Arnold (see entries on reproduction, the family, family/household system, patriarchy)Castells, M. (2004) The Power of Identity, Oxford: Blackwell (Ch.4, ‘The End of Patriarchalism: Social Movements, Family, and Sexuality in the Information Age’)Chrisler, Joan C. (Ed.) (2012) Reproductive Justice: A Global Concern, Santa Barbara, Calif.: PraegerFirestone, Shulamith (1979) The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution, London: The Women’s PressGinsburg, Faye and Rayna Rapp (1991) ‘The Politics of Reproduction’, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 20, pp. 311-343Hamner, Jalna (1993) ‘Women and Reproduction’, in D. Richardson and V. Robinson (Eds) Introducing Women’s Studies, London: Macmillan, pp. 224-249Homans, Hilary (1985) The Sexual Politics of Reproduction, Aldershot: GowerHowe, Tasha R. (2012) Marriages and Families in the 21st Century, Maiden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell (ch. 9 ‘Reproduction and Parenting’)Jackson, Emily (2001) Regulating Reproduction: law, technology and autonomy, Oxford: HartJagger, Gill and Caroline Wright (1999) ‘Introduction: Changing Family Values’, in Gill Jagger and Caroline Wright (Eds) Changing Family Values, London: RoutledgeOakley, Ann (1985) (revised edition) Sex, Gender and Society, Aldershot: GowerStacey, Meg (Ed.) (1992) Changing Human Reproduction: Social Science Perspectives, London: Sage Widdows, Heather et al (Eds) (2006) Women’s Reproductive Rights, Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave MacmillanWebsitesCentre for Reproductive Rights: Reproductive Rights: ’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights: 2 Why Children? Caroline Wright‘Why Children’ was the title of an interesting collection of accounts (unfortunately not available in the library) written by feminists in the 1970s about the process of deciding whether or not to have children in the UK. The writers included some who had gone ahead and taken the plunge, some who had decided against, often with some reluctance and regret, and one who was quite unambivalent, who used the phrase ‘I always knew I did not want children’ – a phrase that recurs in recent studies of childfree women. Some were heterosexual, some lesbian, some married, others not. But the title indicates the assumption that the question ‘why children?’ is addressed to women of childbearing age. This week we ask why women have children and why some do not, exploring women’s own reasons as well as how others account for their reproductive status. In particular we will consider Nancy Chodorow’s argument that reproduction is not always and necessarily a decision imposed on women, but one that many women are motivated to want, because of the psychodynamics of the family in which they developed adult sexed selves. We will also ask why men have children (or don’t). Next week we will address a second, related question, ‘who needs children?’ - this question draws attention to other ‘stakeholders’ in generational reproduction, who may feel the need or the right to influence reproductive decision-making. SeminarWhy do women have children? Questions How are women without children typically portrayed? Why do men have children? How are men without children typically portrayed?Core ReadingChodorow, Nancy (1992) ‘The psychodynamics of the family’ in H. Crowley and S. Himmelweit (Eds) Knowing Women, Cambridge: Polity/OU Press, pp.153-159Available as an E-extract:, Rosemary (2000) ‘When no means no: disbelief, disregard and deviance as discourses of voluntary childlessness’, Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 223-234Available as an E-journal article:, S. Philip and Rosalind B. King (2001) ‘Why Have Children in the 21st Century? Biological Predisposition, Social Coercion, Rational Choice’, European Journal of Population, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 3-20Available as an E-journal article: ReadingAbma, J.C. and G.M. Martinez (2006) ‘Childlessness among older women in the United States: Trends and profiles’, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 68, No. 4, pp. 1045-1056Bartlett, J. (1994) Will you be Mother? Women who choose to say no, London: ViragoBongaarts, J. (1999) ‘Fertility and Decline in the Developed World: Where will it end?’, American Economic Review, Vol. 89, No. 2, pp. 211-229Busfield, J. and M. Paddon (1978) Thinking about Children: Sociology and Fertility in Post-War England, Cambridge: Cambridge University PressDowrick, S. and S. Grundberg (Eds) (1980) Why Children?, London: Woman’s Press (not in library)Gillespie, R. (2001) ‘Contextualizing voluntary childlessness within a postmodern model of reproduction: implications for health and social neEds’, Critical Social Policy, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 139-160Gittins, Diana (1993) The Family in Question: Changing Households and Familiar Ideologies, Basingstoke: Macmillan (Ch. 5 ‘Why do people have children?’)Heaton, T. B. et al (1999) ‘Persistence and change in decisions to remain childless’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 531-539Hird, Myra (2003) ‘Vacant Wombs: Feminist Challenges to Psycho-analytic Theories of Childless Women’, Feminist Review, Vol. 75, No. 1, pp. 5-19Hollway, Wendy (1997) Mothering and Ambivalence, London: RoutledgeJackson, Emily (2006) ‘What is a Parent?, in Alison Diduck and Katherine O’Donovan (Eds) Feminist Perspectives on Family Law, Abingdon, New York: Routledge-Cavendish, pp. 59-74Koropeckyj-Coz, Tanya, Victor Romano and Amanda Moras (2007) ‘Through the Lenses of Gender, Race and Class: Students’ Perceptions of Childless/Childfree Individuals and Couples’, Sex Roles, Vol. 56, Nos. 7-8, pp. 415-428Letherby, Gayle (2002) ‘Challenging Dominant Discourses: Identity and change and the experience of ‘infertility’ and ‘involuntary childlessness’’, Journal of Gender Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 277-288McCallister, F. (1998) Choosing Childlessness, London: Family Policy Studies CentreMcDaniel, Susan A. (1996) ‘Towards a synthesis of feminist and demographic perspectives on fertility’, The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 83-104Marshall, H. (1994) Not Having Children, Oxford: Oxford University PressMorrell, C. (1994) Unwomanly Conduct: The Challenge of Intentional Childlessness, London: RoutledgeO’Brien, M. (1981) The Politics of Reproduction, London: RoutledgeO’Donovan, Katherine and Jill Marshall (2006) ‘After birth: decisions about becoming a mother’, in Alison Diduck and Katherine O’Donovan (Eds) Feminist Perspectives on Family Law, Abingdon, New York: Routledge-Cavendish, pp.101-122Overall, Christine (2012) Why Have Children: The ethical debate, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT PressRich, Adrienne (1977) Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Institution and Experience, London: ViragoRomito, P (1997) ‘Damned if you Do and Damned if you Don’t: Psychological and Social Constraints of Motherhood in Contemporary Europe’, in A. Oakley & J. Mitchell (Eds) Who’s Afraid of Feminism: Seeing Through the Backlash, London: Hamish Hamilton Ruddick, Sara (1990) Maternal Thinking, London: Women’s PressSalecl, R. (2011) The Tyranny of Choice, London: Profile (ch. 4 Children: To have or have not?)Schoen, R. K. et al (1997) ‘Why do Americans want children?’ Population and Development Review, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 333-358Woollett, Anne (1991) ‘Having Children: Accounts of Childless Women and Women with Reproductive Problems’ in Anne Phoenix, Anne Woollett and Eva Lloyd (Eds) Motherhood: Meanings, practices and ideologies, London: Sage, pp. 47-65WebsitesOffice for National Statistics: Births and Fertility: ChildFree: No Kids: Bank: Global Fertility Rates: Week 3Who owns women’s bodies? Who needs children?Caroline WrightThis week we move the focus from the question ‘why children?’, with its implicit focus on women, to the broader question ‘who needs children?’ This second question allows us to identify those other than women of childbearing age who have a stake in the next generation and therefore an interest in the reproductive lives of fertile women. We shall identify some of these ‘stakeholders’ and look at their success in claiming rights over women’s reproductive bodies. This will bring into sharp focus the revolutionary nature of the liberal claim, first articulated in the early modern period in Europe, to individual ‘ownership’ of one’s body. This claim has been central to the 1970s women’s movement, and is pretty much taken for granted today in modern societies. It is a claim that is not without contention, and one that women have yet, de facto, to claim with full success. SeminarWho needs children? QuestionsDoes needing children give other people the right to make claims over the reproductive lives of women? What sort of claims are made, how successfully and by whom?How are these claims differentiated by women’s (dis)ability?How are these claims differentiated by women’s ‘race’/ethnicity?How are these claims differentiated by women’s location?Core ReadingBrowner, C.H. (2000) ‘Situating Women’s Reproductive Activities’, American Anthropologist, Vol. 102, No. 4, pp. 773-778Available as an E-journal article: V. and P. Rubenfeld (1997) ‘Disabled Women and Reproductive Rights’, Disability & Society, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 203-221 Available as an E-journal article:, Makiko and S. Craig Rooney (2012) ‘The Choice Before the Choice: Partner Selection is Essential to Reproductive Justice’, in Joan C. Chrisler (Ed.) Reproductive Justice: A Global Concern, Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger, pp. 11-28Available as an E-book: , Leslie (2002) ‘Demographic Trends, Pronatalism, and Nationalist Ideologies in the late Twentieth Century’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 367-389Available as an E-journal article: ReadingBeck, U. and Beck-Gernshein, E. (2001) Individualization: Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences, London: SageBrenner, Johanna and Maria Ramas (1990), ‘Rethinking women’s oppression’ (first published 1984), in T. Lovell (Ed.) British Feminist Thought, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 152-169Brown Jessica Autumn and Myra Marx Ferree (2005) ‘Close Your Eyes and Think of England’, Gender & Society, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 5-24Dotson, L.A., J. Stinson and L. Christian (2003) ‘“People Tell Me I Can’t Have Sex”: Women with disabilities share their personal perspectives on health care, sexuality and reproductive rights’, Women and Therapy, Vol. 26, Nos 3-4, pp. 195-210Fraser, N. (1997) Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the ‘Postsocialist’ Condition, New York & London: Routledge (ch. 10 Beyond the Master/Subject Model)Ginsberg, F. and R. Rapp (1991) ‘The Politics of Reproduction’, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 11-43Halkias, Alexandra (2003) ‘Money, God and Race: The Politics of Reproduction and the Nation in Modern Greece’, European Journal of Women's Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 211- 232Hill Collins, Patricia (1999) ‘Producing the Mothers of the Nation: Race, Class and Contemporary US Population Policies’, in Nira Yuval-Davis and Pnina Werbner (Eds) Women, Citizenship and Difference, London and New York: Zed, pp. 118-129Inhorn, Marcia C. (2006) ‘Defining Women’s Health: A Dozen Messages from more than 150 Ethnographies’, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 345-378Irwin, Sarah (2000) 'Reproductive Regimes: Changing Relations of Inter-dependence and Fertility Change', Sociological Research Online, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 151-167Kanaaneh, Rhoda A. (2002) Birthing the Nation: Strategies of Palestinian Women in Israel, Berkeley: University of California PressKing, Leslie (1998) ‘“France Needs Children”: Pronatalism, Nationalism and Women's Equity’, The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 33-52MacPherson, C.B (1962) The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism, Oxford: OUPMishtal, Joanna Z. (2009) ‘Matters of “Conscience”: The Politics of Reproductive Healthcare in Poland’, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 161-183Nelson, J. (2003) Women of Colour and the Reproductive Rights Movement, New York: New York University PressO, Neill, J. (1994) The Missing Child in Liberal Theory, Toronto: University of Toronto Overall, Christine (2012) Why Have Children: The ethical debate, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press (ch. 2 ‘Reproductive Freedom, Autonomy and Reproductive Rights’)Parry, Diana C. (2005) ‘Women's Leisure as Resistance to Pronatalist Ideology’, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 133-151Pateman, Carole (1988) The Sexual Contract, Cambridge: Polity PressPhilips, A. (2011) ‘It’s my body and I’ll do what I like with it: Bodies as Objects and Property’, Political Theory, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 724-748Phillips, A. (2013) Our Bodies, Whose Property?, Princeton: Princeton University Press (Ch. 1 ‘What’s So Special About the Body?’) Roberts, Dorothy (1998) ‘Who May Give Birth to the Citizen?: Reproduction, Eugenics and Immigration’, Rutgers Race and Law Review, Vol. 1, pp. 129-135Silliman, J. et al (2004) Undivided Rights: Women of Color Organise for Reproductive Justice, Boston: South End PressSparrow, Robert (2008) ‘Is it “Every Man’s Right to Have Babies If He Wants Them”?: Male Pregnancy and the Limits of Reproductive Liberty’, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 275-299Thomas, L.M. (2003) Politics of the Womb: Women, Reproduction and the State in Kenya, Berkeley: California University PressTilly, Liz, Jan Walmsley, Sarah Earle and Dorothy Atkinson (2012) ‘International Perspectives on the Sterilization of Women with Intellectual Disabilities’, in Sarah Earle, Carol Komarory and Linda Layne (Eds) Understanding Reproductive Loss: Perspectives on Life, Death and Fertility, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 23-36Yuval-Davis, N. (1997) Gender and Nation, London: Sage (Ch. 2: ‘Women and the biological reproduction of the nation’)WebsitesCentre for Reproductive Rights: Rights Fund: Reproductive Rights: ’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights: 4Femininity and Motherhood: Towards an Uncoupling?Caroline WrightThis week we shall look at the tight bond maintained between ‘being a woman’ and ‘being a mother’: between femininity and motherhood. Within Western ‘modernity’ and more widely, the idea that biological motherhood is an essential component of adult femininity, that the transition to motherhood marks the transition to adulthood for women, has been prominent. However there is an important conditional clause: only ‘the right women’ should become mothers. The right women are marked by age, marriage (or at least a steady partnership), sexuality (heterosexual), able-bodiedness and ‘respectability’. Respectability is often marked in terms of class and ‘race’. It is deemed ‘natural’ for women who meet these criteria to become mothers, and ‘good mothering’ is assumed to come ‘naturally’ to them. At the same time step-mothers are supposedly ‘bad’ mothers, by definition. These dominant discourses are often at variance with the actual experiences of mothers, but continue to shape women’s responses to motherhood. Meanwhile as women’s paid employment has become the norm, the extent to which they can ‘have it all’, ie. a career and children, has received much attention, amidst anxieties that middle-class, professional women are missing out on reproduction and will be left with ‘baby hunger’.SeminarWhat are the dominant discourses of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ mothering’?QuestionsWhat problems do they pose for women’s identity and agency and how do women respond?How are constructions of ‘good’ mothering related to different parenting styles?What would ‘good enough’ mothering look like and why is it important?How have feminists theorized the relationship between motherhood and femininity?Core Reading and ViewingBBC Three (2011) Cherry’s Parenting Dilemmas, originally broadcast on August 11. Available at Choi, P., Henshaw, C., Baker, S. and?Tree, J. (2005) ‘Supermum, Superwife, Supereverything: Performing Femininity in the?Transition to Motherhood’, Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, Vol. 23, No.2, pp. 167-180 Available as an E-journal article:, Allison (2005) ‘Contesting the Myth of the ‘Wicked Stepmother’: Narrative Analysis of an Online Stepfamily Support Group’, Western Journal of Communication, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 27-47Available as an E-journal article:, Carol (1996) ‘Deconstructing Motherhood’ in Bortoloia Silva, E. (Ed.) Good Enough Mothering: Feminist Perspectives on Lone Motherhood, London: Routledge, pp. 37-57 Available as an E-extract: (requested 22 October 2013) ReadingApple, Rima D. (2006) Perfect Motherhood: Science and Childrearing in America, New Brunswick: Rutgers University PressArendell, Terry (2000) ‘Conceiving and Investigating Motherhood: The Decade's Scholarship’, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 62, No. 4, pp. 1192-1207Berger, P. & Berger, B. (1983) The War Over the Family: Capturing the Middle Ground, London: HutchinsonBernard, Stephen and S. J. Connell (2010) ‘Normative Discrimination and the Motherhood Penalty’, Gender and Society, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 717-745Blossfeld, H.P. (Ed.) (1995) The New Role of Women: Family Formation in Modern Societies, Boulder: WestviewBornat, Joanne, Brian Dimmock, David Jones and Sheila Peace (1999) ‘Generational ties in the ‘New’ family: Changing contexts for traditional obligations’, in Elizabeth B. Silva and Carol Smart (Eds) The New Family?, London: Sage, pp. 115-128Byrne, B. (2006) ‘In search of a good mix: “race”, class, gender and practices of mothering’, Sociology, Vol. 40, No. 46, pp. 1001-1017DiQinzio, P. (1999) The Impossibility of Motherhood: Feminism, Individualism and the Problem of Mothering, London: RoutledgeGimenez, M.E. (1983) ‘Feminism, Pronatalism and Motherhood’, in J. Trebilcot (Ed.) Mothering: Essays in Feminist Theory, Totowa: Rowman & LittlefieldGlenn, Evelyn Nakano (1994) ‘Social Constructions of Mothering: A Thematic Overview’, in Glenn, Evelyn Nakano et al (Eds) Mothering: Ideology, Experience and Agency, London: RoutledgeGreen, Trish (2010) Motherhood, Absence and Transition: when adult children leave home, Farnham; Burlington: AshgateHewlett, S.A. (2002) Baby Hunger: The New Battle for Motherhood, London: Atlantic BooksHollway, W. and Featherstone, B. (Eds) (1997) Mothering and Ambivalence, London: RoutledgeJohnson, Deirdre D. and Debra H. Swanson (2006) ‘Constructing the ‘Good Mother’: The Experience of Mothering Ideologies by Work Status’, Sex Roles, Vol. 54, Nos 7-8. pp. 509-519Kaplan, E. Ann (1992) Motherhood and Representation: the mother in popular culture and melodrama, London: RoutledgeKuperberg, Arielle and Pamela Stone (2008) ‘The Media Depiction of Women Who Opt Out’, Gender and Society, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 497-517 Landsman, Gail (2010) Reconstructing Motherhood and Disability in the Age of ‘Perfect’ Babies, Hoboken: Taylor and FrancisLareau, Annette (2003) Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race and Family Life, Berkeley: University of California Press (esp. ch. 1 ‘Concerted Cultivation and Natural Growth’)Lewiecki-Wilson, Cynthia and Jen Cellio (Eds) (2011) Disability and Mothering: Liminal Spaces of Embodied Knowledge, Syracuse: Syracuse University PressLorber, J. (1994) Paradoxes of Gender, New Haven, CT.: Yale University Press (esp. ch. 7 ‘Rocking the Cradle: Gendered Parenting’)McMahon, M. (1995) Engendering Motherhood: Identity and self-transformation in women’s lives, New York: Guildford PressMalacrida, Claudia (2009) ‘Performing Motherhood in a Disablist World: Dilemmas of motherhood, femininity and disability’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 99-117Marshall, Harriette (1991) ‘The social construction of motherhood: An analysis of childcare and parenting manuals’, in Anne Phoenix, Anne Woollett and Eva Lloyd (Eds) Motherhood: Meanings, Practices and Ideologies, London: Sage, pp. 66-85Martinot, S. (2007) ‘Motherhood and the invention of race’, Hypatia, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 79-97Meyers, Diana (2001) ‘The Rush to Motherhood: pronatalist discourse and women’s autonomy’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 735-74Miller, Tina (2007) ‘“Is This What Motherhood is All About?”: Weaving Experiences and Discourse through Transition to First-Time Motherhood’, Gender and Society, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 337-358Neustatter, Angela (1989) Hyenas in Petticoats: A Look at Twenty Years of Feminism, London: Penguin (Ch. 4 ‘Holding the baby: feminism and motherhood)Nicolson, Paula (1993) ‘Motherhood and Women’s Lives’, in Diane Richardson and Victoria Robinson (Eds) Introducing Women’s Studies, London: Macmillan, pp. 201-223Oakley, Ann (1979) Becoming a Mother, Oxford: Martin RobertsonOakley, Ann (1984) Taking It Like a Woman, London: FontanaO’Donovan, Katherine and Jill Marshall (2006) ‘After birth: decisions about becoming a mother’, in Alison Diduck and Katherine O’Donovan (Eds) Feminist Perspectives on Family Law, Abingdon, New York: Routledge-Cavendish, pp. 123-138Perrier, Maud (2013) ‘Middle-Class Mothers’ Moralities and “Concerted Cultivation”: Class Others, Ambivalence and Excess’, Sociology, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 655-670.Prilleltensky, O. (2003) ‘A Ramp to Motherhood: The Experiences of Mothers with Physical Disabilities’, Sexuality and Disability, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 21-47Prilleltensky, Ora (2004) Motherhood and Disability: Children and Choices, Houndmills, New York: Palgrave MacmillanReynolds, T. (2005) Caribbean Mothers: Identity and Experience in the UK, London: Tufnell PressRoss, Ellen (1995) ‘New Thoughts on “The Oldest Vocation”: Mothers and Motherhood in Recent Feminist Scholarship’, Signs, Vol. 20, No. 2Silva, Elizabeth B. (1999) ‘Transforming Housewifery: Dispositions, Practices and Technologies’, in Elizabeth B. Silva and Carol Smart (Eds) The New Family?, London: Sage, pp. 48-65Smyth, Lisa (2012) The Demands of Motherhood: Agents, Roles and Recognitions, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacmillanSnitow, Ann (1992) ‘Feminism and Motherhood: An American Reading’, Feminist Review, No. 40, pp. 32-51 Thomas, Carol (1997) ‘The baby and the bath water: Disabled women and motherhood in social context’, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 622-643Walkerdine, V. and Lucey, H. (1989) Democracy in the kitchen: Regulating Mothers and Socialising Daughters, London: ViragoWoollett, Anne and Ann Phoenix (1991) ‘Psychological Views of Mothering’, in Anne Phoenix, Anne Woollett and Eva Lloyd (Eds) Motherhood: Meanings, practices and ideologies, London: Sage, pp. 28-46WebsitesMumsnet: : Families: Mums: 5Masculinity and Fatherhood: Beyond the Breadwinner Role?Maria Do Mar PereiraThis week we turn our attention to the relationship between masculinity and fatherhood. Is fatherhood seen as an essential component of masculinity? Is this relationship limited to biological fatherhood – a sign of virility? The social aspects of fathering are not deemed to make the adult man in the way in which motherhood marks the transition to adult femininity. Rather it is entry into paid work that marks the rite de passage to adult status for males: the ‘breadwinner’ role. We shall consider new and old fatherhood discourses about what makes a ‘good’ father, including the concept and practice of a nurturing or involved fatherhood, and how this is differentiated by social class. In exploring the extent to which fatherhood is being reinvented in the 21st century we will also explore the reinvention, or not, of masculinities.SeminarWhat is the dominant discourse of good fathering?QuestionsHow is good fathering differentiated by social class?Is fatherhood being reinvented?Is the fear of ‘fatherlessness’ warranted?Core ReadingHalford, Susan (2006) ‘Collapsing the Boundaries? Fatherhood, Organization and Home-Working’, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 383-402Available as an E-journal article:, Carla and Naomi Gerstel (2009) ‘Fathering, Class, and Gender: A comparison of Physicians and Emergency Medical Technicians’, Gender and Society, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 161-187Available as an E-journal article: , Glenda and Stephanie Arnold (2007) ‘How Involved is Involved Fathering?: An Exploration of the Contemporary Culture of Fatherhood’, Gender and Society, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 501-527Available as an E-journal article: ReadingBradshaw, J. et al (1999) Absent Fathers?, London: RoutledgeCollier, Richard (1999) ‘Men, heterosexuality and the changing family: (re)constructing fatherhood in law and social policy’, in Gill Jagger and Caroline Wright (Eds) Changing Family Values, London: Routledge, pp. 38-58Collier, Richard and Sally Sheldon (2008) Fragmenting Fatherhood: A Socio-legal Study, Oxford, Portland Oregon: Hart PublishingDavies, Cynthia R. (Ed.) (1998) Lost Fathers: The Politics of Fatherlessness in America, Basingstoke: Macmillan Dennis, Norman and George Erdos (2000) Families Without Fatherhood, London: Institute for the Study of Civil Society (3rd edition) Doucet, Andrea (2013) ‘A “Choreography of Becoming”: Fathering, Embodied Care, and New Materialisms’, Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 284–305Dowd, Nancy (2000) Redefining Fatherhood, New York: NYU Press (Ch. 10 ‘Gender Challenges: Masculinities and Mothers’)Faludi, S. (1999) Stiffed: The Betrayal of Modern Man, London: Chatto and Windus Gerstel, Naomi and Sally K. Gallagher (2001) ‘Men’s Caregiving: Gender and the Contingent Character of Care’, Gender & Society, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 197-217 Greene, M. E. and A. E. Biddlecom (2000) ‘Absent and problematic men: demographic accounts of male reproductive roles’, Population and Development Review, Vol. 25, No. 3: pp. 81-116Hamer, Jennifer and Kathleen Marchioro (2002) ‘Becoming Custodial Dads: Exploring parenting among low income and working class African American fathers’, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 116-129Harris, Ian M. (1995) Messages Men Hear: Constructing Masculinities, London: Taylor and Francis (Ch. 6 ‘Lovers’) Harwood, Susan (1997) Family Fictions: Representations of the Family in 1980s Hollywood Cinema, London: Macmillan (Ch. 5 ‘Backlash patriarch or the new man? The role of the father’ and pp. 184-185 ‘The nineties father: romance and parthenogenesis’)Henwood, Karen and Joanne Procter (2003) ‘The “good father”: Reading men’s accounts of paternal involvement during the transition to first-time fatherhood’, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 337-355Hobson, B. (Ed.) (2002) Making Men into Fathers: Men, Masculinities and the Social Politics of Fatherhood, Cambridge: Cambridge University PressHodges, Melissa L. and Michell J. Budig (2010) ‘Who Gets the Daddy Bonus? Organizational hegemonic masculinity and the impact of fatherhood on earnings’, Gender and Society, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 717-745Irwin, Sarah (1999) ‘Resourcing the family: Gendered claims and obligations and issues of explanation’, in Elizabeth B. Silva and Carol Smart (Eds) The New Family? London: Sage, pp. 31-45Kilkey, Majella (2006) ‘New Labour and Reconciling Work and Family Life: Making it Father’s Business’, Social Policy and Society, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 167-175Kimmel, Michael S., Jeff Hearn and R.W. Connell (Eds) (2005) Handbook of Studies on Men & Masculinities, Thousand Oaks: Sage PublicationsKrampe, Edythe M. (2009) ‘When is the Father Really There? A conceptual reformulation of father presence’, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 30, No. 7, pp. 875-897Lees, Sue (1999) ‘Will boys be left on the shelf?’ in Gill Jagger and Caroline Wright (Eds) Changing Family Values, London: Routledge, pp. 59-76Lupton, Deborah and Lesley Barclay (1997) Constructing Fatherhood: Discourses and Experiences, London: SageMarsiglio, William (2004) Stepdads: Stories of love, hope and repair, Lanham, MD: Rowman and LittlefieldMarsiglio, William and Ramon Hinojosa (2007) ‘Managing the Multifather Family: Stepfathers as Father Allies’, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 69, No. 3, pp. 845-862Miller, Tina (2011) Making Sense of Fatherhood: Gender, caring and work, Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University PressMorgan, Patricia (1999) Farewell to the Family?: Public Policy and Family Breakdown in Britain and the US, London: IEA Health and Welfare UnitMoore, Lisa Jean (2007) Sperm Counts: Overcome by man’s most precious fluid, New York: New York University Press, Ch. 3 (‘My sperm in shining armour: children’s books’)Natalier, Kristin and Belinda Hewitt (2010) ‘“It’s Not Just About the Money”: Non-resident Fathers’ Perspectives on Paying Child Support’, Sociology, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 489-505Nelson, Timothy J. (2004) ‘Low-Income Fathers’, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 427-451Norman, Dennis and George Erdos (2000) Families without Fatherhood, London: Institute for the Study of Civil SocietyRuddick, Sara (1997) ‘The idea of fatherhood’, in H. L. Nelson (Ed.) Feminism and Families, London: RoutledgeSchindler, Holly S. (2010) ‘The Importance of Parenting and Financial Contributions in Promoting Fathers’ Psychological Health’, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 72, No. 2, pp. 318-332Sheldon, S. (2003) ‘Unwilling Fathers and Abortion: Terminating Men’s Child Support Obligations’, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 66, No.2, pp. 175-194Smart, Carol (2006) ‘The Ethic of Justice Strikes Back: Changing Narratives of Fatherhood’, in Alison Diduck and Katherine O’Donovan (Eds) Feminist Perspectives on Family Law, Abingdon, New York: Routledge-Cavendish, pp. 123-138Westwood, Sallie (1996) ‘“Feckless fathers”: Masculinities and the British state’, in Mairtin Mac an Ghaill (Ed.) Understanding Masculinities, Buckingham: Open University Press, pp. 21-34Additional ViewingBBC Four (2010) A Century of Fatherhood, originally broadcast in June 2010, 3 episodes. The three episodes are available on BobNational through the following links:episode 1 – The Good Father: episode 2 – Fathers at War: 3 – The New Father: BBC Four (2010) Biology of Dads, originally broadcast on 22 June 2010. Available on BobNational: BBC Four (2010) The Cinema Show: Father and Sons on Film, originally broadcast on 22 June 2010. Available on BobNational: WebsitesDad Talk: : Institute: Need Fathers: Centre for Fathering: Families: 6Reading Week There are no lectures or seminars this week for Transformations. Students should work on their class essay (due in week 7).Please note that this is not an official reading week in Sociology, and your other modules may require your attendance. We have a reading week in Transformations in term 1 as a result of student feedback, and it is made possible by us starting the module in week 1 of the academic year. Week 7Beyond the Nuclear Family: Can parenting ‘be’ what parenting ‘is’?Maria Do Mar PereiraThe title of this week’s lecture is a variation on the cryptic question asked by Elizabeth Silva and Carol Smart in their book, The New Family. What they asked was whether definitions of ‘the family’ ever reflect the diversity of modern family forms. ‘The family’ has always carried strong normative overtones. It designates what ‘ought to be’ rather than what is, and, as we have seen, so does ‘parenting’, especially ‘mothering’. This week we shall look at the different types of parenting prevailing in modern society, including single motherhood and gay and lesbian parents. Can they all be included within the general definition of ‘good parenting’? Looking in detail at gay and lesbian parents we will consider their decision-making and strategies around parenting, the wider discourses and counter-discourses about their ‘fitness’ to parent and the challenges that they pose to heterosexual parenting. We will also look at how middle class single mothers are negotiating negative discourses of single motherhood.SeminarWho decides who’s fit to be a parent? What criteria are used?QuestionsWhat challenges to heterosexual parenting are posed by gay and lesbian parenting?Do families need fathers? Do they need mothers?How do middle class single mothers present themselves and what are the implications for other single mothers?Core ReadingBock, Jane D. (2000) ‘Doing the Right Thing? Single Mothers by Choice and the Struggle for Legitimacy’, Gender and Society, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 62-86Available as an E-journal article:, Mukti J. (1995) Who’s fit to be a parent? London: Routledge (Ch. 9 ‘Gay Parents’)Available as an E-book: , Gillian A. (2000) ‘Opting Into Motherhood: Lesbians Blurring the Boundaries and Transforming the Meaning of Parenthood and Kinship’, Gender and Society, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 11-35Available as an E-journal article: ReadingAnderssen, N.,?C. Amlie and?E. Ytteroy (2002) ‘Outcomes for Children with Lesbian or Gay Parents: A Review of Studies?from 1978 to 2000’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 335-351Ben, Ari, Adital and T. Livni (2006) ‘Motherhood is Not a Given Thing: Experiences and Constructed Meanings of Biological and Nonbiological Lesbian Mothers’, Sex Roles, Vol. 54, Nos. 7-8, pp. 521-531Biblarz, Timothy J. and Evren Savci (2010) ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Families’, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 72, No. 3, pp. 480-497Bozett, Frederick W. (Ed.) (1987) Gay and Lesbian Parents, London: PraegerClarke, V. (2001) ‘What about the Children? Arguments against Lesbian and Gay Parenting’, Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 555- 570 Coleman, Marilyn and Lawrence H. Ganong (Eds) (2004) Handbook of Contemporary Families: Considering the Past, Contemplating the Future, Thousand Oaks: Sage PublicationsDavies, Jon (1993) ‘From household to family to individualism’ in Jon Davies (Ed.) The family – Is it just another lifestyle choice?, London: IEA Health and Welfare UnitDempsey, Deborah (2010) ‘Lesbians and Gay Men Forming Families with Children’, Sociology, Vol. 44, pp. 1145-1162Donovan, Catherine (2000) ‘Who Needs a Father? Negotiating Biological Fatherhood in British Lesbian Families Using Self-Insemination’, Sexualities, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 149-164Duncan, Simon and Rosalind Edwards (1999) ‘Lone mothers, paid work and the underclass debate’, Critical Social Policy, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 29-49Duncan, Simon and Rosalind Edwards (Eds) (1999) Lone Mothers, Paid work and Gendered Moral Rationalities, Basingstoke: MacmillanDunne, Gillian A. (1999) ‘A Passion for “Sameness”? Sexuality and Gender Accountability’, in Elizabeth B. Silva and Carol Smart (Eds) The New Family? London: Sage, pp. 66-82Dunne, Gillian A. (2000) ‘Opting into Motherhood: Lesbians Blurring the Boundaries and Transforming the Meaning of Parenthood and Kinship’, Gender & Society. Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 11-35 Edin, K. and M. Kefalas (2006) Promises I Can Keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage, Berkeley, California.: University of California PressGiddens, A. (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Society, Cambridge: PolityGoldberg, Abbie E. and Katherine R. Allen (2007) ‘Imagining Men: Lesbian mothers’ perceptions of male involvement during the transition to parenthood’, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 69, No. 2, pp. 352-365Griffin, Kate and Lisa A. Mulholland (Eds) (1997) Lesbian Motherhood in Europe, London and Washington: CassellHanscombe, G. (2006) ‘The Right to Lesbian Parenthood’, in H. Kuhse and P. Singer (Eds) Bioethics: An Anthology (2nd edition), Malden, MA, Oxford, Victoria: Blackwell, pp. 104-107Harne, Lynne (1984) ‘Lesbian custody and the new myth of the father’, Trouble and Strife, No. 3, pp. 12-14Hayden, Corinne P. (1995) ‘Gender, Genetics, and Generation: Reformulating Biology in Lesbian Kinship’, Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 41-63Hertz, Rosanna (2006) Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice, New York: Oxford University PressHicks, Steven and Janet McDermott (Eds) (1999) Lesbian and Gay Fostering and Adoption: Extraordinary Yet Ordinary, London: Jessica KingsleyHogben, S. and Coupland, J. (2000) ‘Egg seeks sperm…End of story? Articulating gay parenting in small ads for reproductive partners’, Discourse and Society, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 459-485Hopkins, Jason et al (2013) ‘Same-Sex Couples, Families, and Marriage: Embracing and Resisting Heteronormativity’, Sociology Compass, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 97-110Juran, Ali (1996) We are Family: Testimonies of Lesbian and Gay Parents, London: CassellKilkey, Majella (2000) Lone Mothers Between Paid Work and Care: The policy regime in twenty countries, Aldershot: AshgateKlett-Davis, Martina (2007) Going it Alone?: Lone Motherhood in Late Modernity, Aldershot, Burlington: AshgateLandau, J. (2009) ‘Straightening Out (the Politics of) Same-Sex Parenting: Representing Gay Families in US Print News Stories and Photographs’, Critical Studies in Media Communication, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 80-100 Lapidus, J. (2004) ‘All the lesbian mothers are coupled, all the single mothers arestraight, and all of us are tired: Reflections on being a single?lesbian mom’, Feminist Economics, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 227-236Levine, Nancy (2008) ‘Alternative Kinship, Marriage, and Reproduction’, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 375-389Mamo, Laura (2013) ‘Queering the Fertility Clinic’, Journal of Medical Humanities, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 227-239Mann, Kirk and Sasha Roseneil (1999) ‘Poor choices?: Gender, agency and the underclass debate’, in Gill Jagger and Caroline Wright (Eds) Changing Family Values, London: Routledge, pp. 98-118Morgan, Patricia (1999) (2nd edition) Farewell to the Family, London: IEA Health and Welfare Unit (Ch. 1 ‘The Breaking of the Modern Family’)Morgan, Patricia (2000) Marriage-lite, London: Institute for the Study of Civil SocietyMorgan, Patricia (2007) The War Between the State and the Family: How government divides and impoverishes, London: Institute for the Study of Civil SocietyNaples, Nancy A. (2004), ‘Queer Parenting in the New Millennium’, Gender & Society, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 679-684Neubeck, K. and Cazenave, N. (2001) Welfare Racism: Playing the Race Card Against American’s Poor, London: RoutledgeNordqvist, Petra (2010) ‘Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Family Resemblances in Lesbian Donor Conception’, Sociology, Vol. 44, No. 6, pp. 1128-1144Nordqvist, Petra (2012) ‘‘I don’t want us to stand out more than we already do’: Complexities and negotiations in lesbian couples’ accounts of becoming a family through donor conception’, Sexualities, Vol. 15, No. 5-6, pp. 644-661 O’Donnell, Kath (1999) ‘Lesbian and gay families: Legal perspectives’ in Gill Jagger and Caroline Wright (Eds) Changing Family Values, London: Routledge, pp. 77-97O’Neill, O. (2000) ‘The “Good Enough Parent” in the Age of the New Reproductive Technologies’, in H.B. Baker and D. Beyleved (Eds) The Ethics of Genetics in Human Procreation, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 33-48Olsen, R. and Clarke, H. (2003) Parenting And Disability: Disabled Parents’ Experiences Of Raising Children, Bristol: Policy PressPopenoe, David (1999) Life Without Father: Compelling new evidence that fatherhood and marriage are indispensable for the good of children and society, London, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University PressRyan-Flood, Roisin (2009) Lesbian Motherhood: Gender, Families and Sexual Citizenship, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacmillanRyan-Flood, Roisin (2011) ‘Negotiating Sexual Citizenship: Lesbians and Reproductive Health Care’, in Rosalind Gill and Christine Scharff (Eds) New Femininities: Postfeminism, Neoliberalism and Subjectivity, Houndmills; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 246-264Smart, Carol (1999) ‘The “new” parenthood: Fathers and mothers after divorce’, in Elizabeth B. Silva and Carol Smart (Eds) The New Family? London: Sage, pp. 100-114Song, M. and Edwards, R. (1997) ‘Raising questions on the perspectives of black lone motherhood’, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 233-244Sparks, Holloway (2004) ‘Queens, Teens and Model Mothers’, in Sanford F. Schram, Joe Soss and Richard Fording (Eds) Race and the Politics of Welfare Reform, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 171-195Touroni, Elena and Adrian Coyle (2002) ‘Decision-Making in Planned Lesbian Parenting: An Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis’, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 12, pp. 194-209Zanghellini, Aleardo (2010) ‘Lesbian and Gay Parents and Reproductive Technologies: The 2008 Australian and UK Reforms’, Feminist Legal Studies, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 227-251Additional ViewingBBC One (2010) The British Family: Our History – Episode 2: Children, originally broadcast on 23 March. Available on BobNational: BBC Three (2011) Shame About Single Mums, originally broadcast on August 30. Available on BobNational: WebsitesDisabled Parents Network: : Single Parents, Equal Families: Family Social: UK Network for LGBT Adoptive and Foster Families: Parents: Gay and Lesbian Parenting Issues: Parent Action Network: Empowering One Parent Families: Centre for Separated Families: Are Family: Magazine for Alternative Families: Week 8Embodied Experiences of Pregnancy in a Technological AgeMaria Do Mar PereiraIn this session we will discuss some of the ways in which reproductive science and technology has reshaped the embodied experience of pregnancy for pregnant women, their partners and medical professionals. The increasing importance of seeing the foetus rather than feeling its movement will be a key point of discussion. We will explore the ways in which reproductive technologies are sometimes experienced as empowering and reassuring, and sometimes as alienating and disempowering. We will discuss the ways in which these technologies can be used in the surveillance and regulation of women’s bodies and in the ‘quality control’ of the children they may produce. The question of ‘foetal rights’ and of abortion will be considered in the context of the social pressure to produce perfect children. Finally we will discuss the ways in which women’s bodies appear to become public property once they become pregnant bodies.SeminarHow does ‘visual knowledge’ impact upon women’s embodied experience Questionsof their pregnancies? What does it mean for men?In what ways do women and men experience the pressure to produce a healthy baby?Do women have the choice not to utilise reproductive medicine?How has ‘visual knowledge’ of pregnancy impacted on the abortion debate?Core ReadingDraper, Jan (2002) ‘“It Was a Real Good Show”: the Ultrasound Scan, Fathers and the Power of Visual Knowledge’, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 771-795Available as an E-journal article:, Rosalind (1987) ‘Fetal Images: The Power of Visual Culture in the Politics of Reproduction’, Feminist Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 263-292Available as an E- journal article: Reed, Kate (2009) ‘‘It’s them faulty genes again’: women, men and the gendered nature of genetic responsibility in prenatal blood screening’, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 343-359Available as an E-journal article: , Julie (2013) The Visualised Foetus: A Cultural and Political Analysis of Ultrasound, Farnham; Burlington, VT : Ashgate (Ch. 2 ‘Ultrasound and its Application to Obstetrics’)Available as an E-book: ReadingAlderson, Priscilla, Clare Williams and Bobbie Farsides (2004) ‘Practitioners’ Views About Equity Within Prenatal Services’, Sociology, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 61-80Asch, A. (2006) ‘Prenatal Diagnosis and Selective Abortion: A Challenge to Practice and Policy’, in H. Kuhse and P. Singer (Eds) Bioethics: An Anthology (2nd edition), Malden, MA, Oxford, Victoria: Blackwell, pp. 122-136Balsamo, Anne (1996) Technologies of the Gendered Body, Durham & London: Duke University Press (Ch. 4 ‘Public Pregnancies’)Browner, C.H. (2007) ‘Can Gender ‘Equity’ in Prenatal Genetic Services Unintentionally Reinforce Male Authority?’, in Marcia Inhorn (Ed.) Reproductive Disruptions: Gender, technology and biopiolitics in the new millennium, New York: Berghahn BooksCahill, Heather A. (2001) ‘Male Appropriation and Medicalization of Childbirth: an Historical Analysis’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 334-342Copelton, Denise A. (2007) ‘“You are what you eat”: Nutritional norms, maternal deviance, and neutralization of women’s prenatal diets’, Deviant Behavior, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 467-494Dworkin, Shari L., and Faye Linda Wachs (2004) ‘“Getting your Body Back”: Postindustrial Fit Motherhood in Shape Fit Pregnancy Magazine’, Gender & Society, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 610-624 Earle, Sarah (2003) ‘“Bumps and Boobs”: Fatness and Women’s Experiences of Pregnancy’, Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 26, No. 3 pp. 245-252Earle, Sarah and Cathy Lloyd (2012) ‘Diabetes and the Pregnancy Paradox: The Loss of Expectations and Reproductive Futures’, in Sarah Earle, Carol Komarory and Linda Layne (Eds) Understanding Reproductive Loss: Perspectives on Life, Death and Fertility, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 65-78Farrant, Wendy (1985) ‘Who’s for Amniocentesis? The Politics of Prenatal Screening’, in Hilary Homans (Ed.) The Sexual Politics of Reproduction, Aldershot: GowerGammeltoft, T. and H?nh Th? Thu? Nguy?n (2007) ‘The Commodification of Obstetric Ultrasound Scanning in Hanoi, Viet Nam’, Reproductive Health Matters, Vol. 15, No. 29, pp. 163-171Ivry, Tsipy (2007) ‘Embodied Responsibilities: Pregnancy in the Eyes of Japanese Ob-Gyns’, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 251-274Ivry, Tsipy (2009) ‘The Ultrasonic Picture Show and the Politics of Threatened Life’, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 189-211Jackson, Emily (2001) Regulating Reproduction: Law, Technology and Autonomy, Oxford, Portland Oregan: Hart Publishing (Ch. 4 ‘Pregnancy and Childbirth’)Kaplan, E. Ann (1994) ‘Look Who’s Talking, Indeed: Fetal Images in Recent North American Visual Culture’, in E. N. Glenn et al (Eds) Mothering: Ideology, Experience and Agency, New York & London: Routledge, pp. 121-137Locock, Louise and J. Alexander (2006) ‘“Just a bystander”? Men’s Place in the Process of Fetal Screening and Diagnosis’, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 62, pp. 1349-1359Longhurst, Robyn (2001) ‘Breaking Corporeal Boundaries: Pregnant Bodies in Public Spaces’ in Ruth Holliday and John Hassard (Eds) Contested Bodies, London: RoutledgeMarkens, Susan, Carole H. Browner, and H. Mabel Preloran (2003), ‘“'I'm not the one they're sticking the needle into”: Latino couples, fetal diagnosis, and the discourse of reproductive rights’, Gender & Society, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 452-481Markens, Susan, Carole H. Browner and H. Mabel Preloran (2009) ‘Interrogating the dynamics between power, knowledge and pregnant bodies in amniocentesis decision making’, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 37-56Martin, Emily (1992) The Woman in the Body: a Cultural Analysis of Reproduction, London: Beacon PressMorgan, Lynn M. & Meredith Michaels (Eds) (1999) Fetal Subjects, Feminist Positions, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania PressMorris, Therese and Katherine McInerney (2010) ‘Media Representations of Pregnancy and Childbirth: An Analysis of Reality Television Programs in the United States’, Birth, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 134-140Oakley, Ann (1984) The Captured Womb: a History of the Medical Care of Pregnant Women, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Overall, Christine (2012) Why Have Children: The ethical debate, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press (Ch. 8 ‘Illness, Impairment and the Procreation Debate’)Purdy, L.M. (2006) ‘Are Pregnant Women Fetal Containers’, in H. Kuhse and P. Singer (Eds) Bioethics: An Anthology (2nd edition), Malden, MA, Oxford, Victoria: Blackwell, pp. 63-76Rapp, Rayna (1999) Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America, London, New York: RoutledgeRoberts, Julie (2012) The Visualised Foetus: a Cultural and Political Analysis of Ultrasound Imagery, Farnham: AshgateRothman, Barbara Katz (1988) The Tentative Pregnancy: Prenatal Diagnosis and the Future of Motherhood, London: PandoraSagrestano, Lynda M. and Ruthbeth Finerman (2012) ‘Pregnancy and Prenatal Care: A Reproductive Justice Perspective’, in Joan C. Chrisler (Ed.) Reproductive Justice: A Global Concern, Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger, pp. 201-230Sandelowski, Margarete (1994) ‘Separate, but Less Unequal: Fetal Ultrasonography and the Transformation of Expectant Mother/Fatherhood’, Gender and Society, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 230-245Savage, Julie (2012) ‘Reconstructing Childbirth Expectations after Pre-eclampsia’, in Sarah Earle, Carol Komarory and Linda Layne (Eds) Understanding Reproductive Loss: Perspectives on Life, Death and Fertility, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 51-63Selin, H. and P.K. Stone (Eds) (2009) Childbirth Across Cultures: Ideas and Practices of Pregnancy, Childbirth and the Postpartum, Dordrecht; New York: SpringerTaylor, J. S. (2000) ‘Of sonograms and baby prams: Prenatal diagnosis, pregnancy, and consumption’, Feminist Studies, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 391-418Tyler, Imogen (2011) ‘Pregnant Beauty: Maternal Femininities Under Neoliberalism’, in Rosalind Gill and Christine Scharff (Eds) New Femininities: Postfeminism, Neoliberalism and Subjectivity, Houndmills; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 21-36Warren, Samantha and Joanna Brewis (2004) ‘Matter Over Mind? Examining the Experience of Pregnancy’, Sociology, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 219-236Williams, Clare (2006) ‘Dilemmas in fetal medicine: premature application of technology or responding to women's choice?’, Sociology of Health & Illness, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 1–20Zechmeister, I. (2001) ‘Foetal Images: The Power of Visual Technology in Antenatal Care and the Implications for Women’s Reproductive Freedom’, Health Care Analysis, Vol. 9, pp. 387–400WebsitesBaby and Bump: Centre: Pregnancy: Forum: 9Giving Birth to Children and MothersMaria Do Mar PereiraBearing in mind that not all pregnancies result in child-birth, this session will explore some of the main issues surrounding contemporary childbirth. Particular attention will be paid to the role of the medical profession in birth and the potential conflicts that might arise between birthing women and their ‘caregivers’. By considering the mechanistic metaphors that have underpinned medical understandings of women’s bodies and the birthing process we will also discuss some of the ways in which women have managed to resist the imposition of particular medical interventions into their birthing experience. We will further explore the ways that ‘race’ and class, for example, affect the way that ‘expectant mothers’’ behaviour is constructed. Finally we will consider the work of midwives and how they navigate the ‘emotion-work’ of helping women to give birth.SeminarWhat impacts have the machine metaphor and the production metaphor had on Questionsmedical practices in childbirth?In what ways is the work of health professionals in birth influenced by both health policy and personal ideology?What discourses and other resources do women from different socioeconomic backgrounds draw upon in their compliance with or resistance to medical management of their childbirthing?Core ReadingFox, Bonnie and Diana Worts (1999) ‘Revisiting the Critique of Medicalized Childbirth: A Contribution to the Sociology of Birth’, Gender and Society, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 326-346Available as an E-journal article:, Billie (2004) ‘Conflicting ideologies as a source of emotion work in Midwifery’, Midwifery, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 261-272Available as an E-journal article:, Deborah and Virginia Schmied (2013) ‘Splitting bodies/selves: women’s concepts of embodiment at the moment of birth’, Sociology of Health & Illness, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 828–841Available as an E-journal article: , Emily (2001) The Woman in the Body, Boston: Beacon Press, Ch. 4 ‘Medical Metaphors of Women’s Bodies: Birth’, pp. 54-70 [See also ch. 8, ‘Birth, Resistance, Race and Class’]Available as an E-book: ReadingBerg, A. (2002) Mothering the Race: Women's Narratives of Reproduction, 1890-1930, Urbana, University of Illinois PressBledsoe, Caroline H. and Rachel Scherrer (2007) ‘The Dialectics of Disruption: Paradoxes of Nature and Professionalism in Contemporary American Childbearing’, in Marcia Inhorn (Ed.) Reproductive Disruptions: Gender, technology and biopolitics in the new millennium, New York: Berghahn BooksBowler, I. (1993) ‘They’re Not the Same as Us: Midwives' Stereotypes of South Asian Descent Maternity Patients’, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 157-178Carter, Shannon K. (2010) ‘Beyond control: body and self in women’s childbearing narratives’, Sociology of Health & Illness, Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 993-1009Davies, Lorna, Rae Daellenbach and Mary Kensington (2011) Sustainability, Midwifery and Birth, Abingdon; New York: RoutledgeDavis-Floyd, Robbie (1992) Birth as an American Rite of Passage, Berkeley, London: University of California PressDavis-Floyd, Robbie E. and Carolyn F. Sargent (1997) Childbirth and Authoritative Knowledge: Cross-cultural Perspectives, Berkeley: University of California PressGlenn, Evelyn Nakano, Grace Chang and Linda Rennie Forcey (Eds) (1994) Mothering: Ideology, Experience and Agency, New York; London: RoutledgeHalfon, Saul (2010) ‘Encountering Birth: Negotiating Expertise, Networks, and My STS Self’, Science as Culture, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 61-77Hunt, S. and A. Symonds (1995) The Social Meaning of Midwifery Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan Jackson, Emily (2001) Regulating Reproduction: Law, Technology and Autonomy, Oxford, Portland Oregon: Hart Publishing (ch. 4 'Pregnancy and Childbirth')Johanson, Richard, Mary Newburn and Alison Macfarlane (2002) ‘Has the Medicalisation of Childbirth Gone Too Far?’, British Medical Journal, No. 324, pp. 892-895Katbamna, Savita (2000) ‘Race’ and Childbirth, Milton Keynes: Open University PressKent, D. (2002) ‘Beyond Expectations: Being Blind and Becoming a Mother’, Sexuality and Disability, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 81-88Kirkham, M. (1999) ‘The culture of midwifery in the National Health Service in England’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 732-739Longhurst, Robyn (2009) 'YouTube: A new space for birth?', Feminist Review, Vol. 93, No.1, pp. 46-63Machizawa, Sayaka and Kayoko Hayashi (2012) ‘Birthing Across Cultures: Towards the Humanization of Childbirth’, in Joan C. Chrisler (Ed.) Reproductive Justice: A Global Concern, Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger, pp. 231-250Martin, Emily (1992) The Woman in the Body, Boston: Beacon PressMartin, Karen A. (2003) ‘Giving Birth Like a Girl’, Gender and Society, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 54-72Murphy-Lawless, Jo (1998) Reading Birth and Death: A History of Obstetric Thinking, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University PressPollock, Stella (1999) Telling Bodies, Performing Birth: Everyday narratives of childbirth, New York: Columbia University PressRagone, Helena and Frances W. Twine (Eds) (2000) Ideologies and Technologies of Motherhood: Race, Class, Sexuality, Nationalism, New York: RoutledgeRothman, Barbara Katz (1989) Recreating Motherhood: Ideology and Technology in a Patriarchal Society, New York: NortonSelin, H. and P.K. Stone (Eds) (2009) Childbirth Across Cultures: Ideas and Practices of Pregnancy, Childbirth and the Postpartum, Dordrecht; New York: SpringerSimonds, W. (2002) ‘Watching the Clock: keeping time during pregnancy, birth and postpartum experiences’, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 559-570Walsh, Denis (2006) Small is Beautiful: Improving Maternity Services – lessons from a Birth Centre, Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing Walsh, Denis (2009) ‘Childbirth embodiment: problematic aspects of current understandings’, Sociology of Health & Illness, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 486–501Witz, A. (1992) Professions and Patriarchy, London: Routledge (Especially Chapter 4 ‘Medical Men and Midwives’)Additional ViewingBBC Three (2010) Cherry Has a Baby, originally broadcast September 2010, available on BobNational: WebsitesMake Women Matter: Action: Worldwide: Childbirth Trust: Maternal Mortality: 10The Feminist Politics of Infant Feeding: Is ‘Breast Best’?Caroline WrightHistorically mothers breastfed their babies or, if they were unable or unwilling to do that, their babies were mostly breastfed by another woman, a practice known as wet-nursing. In the late 19th century the first artificial commercial infant food was developed, and, as wet-nursing declined in popularity and the marketing of formula intensified, breastfeeding began to decline. Public health messages since the 1970s have sought to reverse this decline through a ‘breast is best’ narrative. This week we’ll be considering the politics of infant feeding and the claims and counter claims made in favour of breastfeeding. We’ll also pay attention to women’s experiences of breastfeeding and bottle-feeding, and the difficulties they may face if they want to breastfeed. Breastfeeding is inherently gendered and embodied, and the debates about it and women’s relation to it connect with discourses of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ mothering and the mother-child bond, as well as the sexualisation of women’s breasts and the public-private divide. Binary oppositions of nature vs. commerce; health benefit vs. health risk; sustainable vs. unsustainable; choice vs. duty; dependence vs. autonomy can also be identified. SeminarOn what medical, environmental and social grounds is it argued that ‘breast is best’Questions for infant feeding? What counter-arguments can be identified?To what extent are women’s experiences of breastfeeding at odds with the ‘breast is best’ narrative?How do women who bottle-feed navigate the ‘breast is best’ narrative? How is breastfeeding differentiated by the social class of the mother and what factors might explain this differentiation?Why is breastfeeding such a ‘vexed feminist issue’ (Schmied and Lupton, 2010)? Why is the international marketing of infant formula so controversial? Core Reading and ViewingBBC Three (2011) Is Breast Best? Cherry Healey Investigates, originally broadcast on April 12. Available at , Ellie J. (2008) ‘Living with Risk in the Age of “Intensive Motherhood”: Maternal Identity and Infant Feeding’, Health, Risk and Society, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 467-477Available as an E-journal article: , Virginia and Deborah Lupton (2001) ‘Blurring the Boundaries: Breastfeeding and Maternal Subjectivity’, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 234-250Available as an E-journal article: Van Esterik, Penny (2013) ‘The Politics of Breastfeeding: An Advocacy Approach’, in Carole Counihan and Penny Van Esterik (Eds) Food and Culture: A Reader, New York: Routledge, pp. 510-530, Available online: as an E-extract: ReadingAbrahams, Sheryl (2012) ‘Milk and Social Media’, Journal of Human Lactation, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 400-406Bobel, Christina G. (2001) ‘Bounded Liberation: A Focused Study of La Leche League International’, Gender & Society, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 130-151Britton, Cathryn (1998) ‘“Feeling Letdown” An exploration of an embodied sensation associated with breastfeeding’, in Sarah Nettleton and Jonathan Watson (Eds) The Body in Everyday Life, London; New York: Routledge, pp. 65-82Callaghan, Jane E.M. and Lisa Lazard (2012) ‘“Please don’t put the whole dang thing out there!”: A discursive analysis of internet discussions around infant feeding’, Psychology and Health, Vol. 27, No. 8, pp. 938-955Chetley, Andrew (1979) The Baby Killer Scandal: A War on Want investigation into the promotion and sale of powdered milks in the Third World, London: War on WantGong, Qian and Peter Jackson (2012) ‘Consuming Anxiety?: Parenting Practices in China after the Infant Formula Scandal’, Food, Culture and Society, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 557-578Hausman, Bernice L. (2004) ‘The Feminist Politics of Breastfeeding’, Australian Feminist Studies, Vol. 19, No. 45, pp. 273-285Hausman, Bernice L. (2007) ‘Things (Not) to Do with Breasts in Public: Maternal Embodiment and the Biocultural Politics of Infant Feeding’, New Literary History, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 479-504Johnstone-Robledo, Ingrid, Stephanie Wares, Jessica Fricker and Pasek Leigh (2007) Indecent Exposure: Self-objectification and Young Women’s Attitudes Towards Breastfeeding’, Sex Roles, Vol. 56, Nos. 7-8, pp. 429-437Johnstone-Robledo, Ingrid and Alison Murray (2012) ‘Reproductive Justice for Women and Infants: Restoring Women’s Postpartum Health and Infant-feeding Options’, in Joan C. Chrisler (Ed.) Reproductive Justice: A Global Concern, Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger, pp. 269-288Knaak, Stephanie (2010) ‘Contextualising Risk, Constructing Choice: Breastfeeding and good mothering in risk society’, Health, Risk & Society, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 345-355Kuttai, Heather (2011) ‘Nurturing the Nurturer: Reflections on an experience of breastfeeding, disability and physical trauma’, in Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson and Jen Cellio (Eds) Disability and Mothering: Liminal Spaces of Embodied Knowledge, Syracuse: Syracuse University PressLee, Ellie J. (2007) ‘Infant Feeding in Risk Society’, Health, Risk and Society, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 295-309McCaughey, Martha (2010) ‘Got Milk?: Breastfeeding as an “Incurably Informed” Feminist STS Scholar’, Science as Culture, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 79-100McCarter-Spaulding, Deborah (2008) ‘Is Breastfeeding Fair?: Tensions in Feminist Perspectives on Breastfeeding and the Family’, Journal of Human Lactation, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 206-212Murtagh, Lindsey and Anthony Moulton (2011) ‘Working Mothers, Breastfeeding and the Law’, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 101, No. 2, pp. 217-223Palmer, Gabrielle (2009) The Politics of Breastfeeding: When Breasts are Bad for Business, London: Pinter and Martin Ltd (on order for library)Perdue, Robert Todd, Joshua Sbicca and Jeanne Halcomb (2012) ‘ A Life Cycle Approach to Food Justice: The Case of Breastfeeding’, Environmental Justice, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 168-172Regan, Paul and Elaine Ball (2013) ‘Breastfeeding Mothers’ Experiences’, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 679-688Rippeyoung, Phyllis L.F. and Mary C. Noonan (2012) ‘Is Breastfeeding Truly Cost Free? Income Consequences of Breastfeeding for Women’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 77, No. 2, pp. 244-267Stevens, Emily E. (2009) ‘A History of Infant Feeding’, Journal of Perinatal Education, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 32-39Sundhagen, Rebecca (2009) ‘Breastfeeding and Child Spacing’, in H. Selin and P.K. Stone (Eds) Childbirth Across Cultures: Ideas and Practices of Pregnancy, Childbirth and the Postpartum, Dordrecht; New York: Springer, pp. 23-32Tarrant, Roslyn C., Margaret Sheridan-Pereira, Roberta A. McCarthy, Katherine M. Younger and John M. Kearney (2013) ‘Mothers who Formula Feed: Their Practices, Support Needs and Factors Influencing their Infant Feeding Decision’, Child Care in Practice, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 78-94Traina, Cristina L.H. (2011) Erotic Attunement: Parenthood and the Ethics of Sensuality Between Unequals, Chicago: Chicago University Press Turner, Paaige K. and Kristen Norwood (2013) ‘Unbounded Motherhood: Embodying a Good Working Mother Identity’, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 396-424Weiner, Lynn Y. (1994) ‘Reconstructing Motherhood: The La Leche League in Postwar America’ Journal of American History, Vol. 80, No. 4, pp. 1357-1381 WebsitesBaby Milk Action: Baby Food Action Network: Leche League GB: Friendly Breastfeeding Support from Pregnancy Onwards: Mums: Support for Feeding Your Baby: Advice (See ‘Your Newborn’ on top blue menu bar): Childbirth Trust: Breastfeeding Network: UK Baby Friendly Initiative: 11Social and Cultural Politics of AdoptionMaria Do Mar PereiraParenthood is often regarded as a natural and inevitable part of the life cycle, yet individuals do not possess an inalienable/innate right to parent children. Nowhere perhaps is this more evident than in the area of adoption. This lecture looks historically at adoption practices both in the UK and internationally. Ideologies about who constitutes the ‘fit’ parent have influenced UK adoption policy, notions of ‘fitness’ themselves overlaid with particular ideas about ‘race’, social class, gender and sexuality. Although since 2005 legislation in England defines any family structure as appropriate for a child’s upbringing, single men still face restrictions on adoption and gay couples face resistance. This lecture will also consider the ‘race’, class and cross/transcultural politics of adoption, looking at how policy has shifted over time and asking what is in the best interests of the child. Finally we will explore the rising trend of inter-country adoption, which raises further questions about neo-colonialism and the global commodification of children.SeminarHow have class, sexuality and gender shaped UK social policy around Questionsadoption?Is transracial adoption ‘in the best interest of the child’ or the best interestsof society?What structures transnational adoption and does it matter?Core ReadingBetts, Gloria (1994) ‘Gloria’s Story’, in Ivor Gabor and Jane Aldridge (Eds) In the Best Interests of the Child: Culture, Identity and Transracial Adoption, London: Free Association Books, pp. 6-11Available as an E-extract:, Jacqueline (2004) ‘Moving Babies: Globalization, Markets and Transracial Adoption’, Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 181-198Available as an E-journal article: [search through HeinOnline Jnl Library]Hicks, Stephen (2011) Lesbian, Gay and Queer Parenting: Families, Intimacies, Genealogies, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan (Ch. 7 ‘State’, pp. 174-206)Available as an E-book: ReadingBharadwaj, Aditya (2003) ‘Why Adoption is not an Option in India: The visibility of infertility, the secrecy of donor insemination, and other cultural complexities’, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 56, No. 9, pp. 1867-1880Briggs, L. (2003) ‘Mother, Child, Race, Nation: The Visual Iconography of Rescue and the Politics of Transnational and Transracial Adoption’, Gender & History, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 179-200Campion, Mukhti J. (1995) Who’s Fit to be a Parent? Routledge: London (Ch. 2 ‘Other People’s Children: Who’s Fit to Adopt?’)Dorow, S. K. (2006) Transnational Adoption: A Cultural Economy of Race, Gender and Kinship, New York: New York University PressFogg-Davis, Hawley (2002) The Ethics of Transracial Adoption, Ithaca: Cornell University PressGaber, Ivor and Jane Aldridge (1994) In the best interest of the child: culture, identity and transracial adoption, London: Free Association BooksGrice, H. (2005) ‘Transracial Adoption Narratives: Prospects and Perspectives’, Meridians: feminism, race, transnationalism, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 124-148Harris-Short, S. (2012) ‘Holding onto the past? Adoption, birth parents and the law in the twenty-first century’, in R. Probert and C. Barton (Eds) Fifty Years in Family Law, Cambridge: Intersentia, pp. 147-160Hearst, Alice (2009) ‘Children, International Human Rights, and the Politics of Belonging’, in Martha A. Fineman and Karen Worthington (Eds) What is Right for Children?, Farnham; Burlington: Ashgate, pp. 329-347Hicks, Stephen and Janet McDermott (Eds) (1999) Lesbian and Gay Fostering and Adoption: Extraordinary yet Ordinary, London: J. KingsleyHicks, Stephen (2005) ‘Lesbian and Gay Foster Care and Adoption: A brief UK history’, Adoption and Fostering, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.42-56Howe, David (1992) Half A Million Women: Mothers Who Lose Their Children by Adoption, London: Penguin BooksHowell, Signe (2006) The Kinning of Foreigners: Transnational Adoption in a Global Perspective, Oxford: Berghahn BooksHumphrey, M. and H. Humphrey (1993) Intercountry Adoption: Practical Experiences, London: Routledge (Ch. 9)Judith, M. (2001) ‘Intercountry Adoption: A Global Problem or a Global Solution?’, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 141-154Kay, Jackie (1991) The Adoption Papers, Newcastle: BloodaxeKirton, Derek (2000) Race, Ethnicity and Adoption, Milton Keynes: Open University PressMandell, Betty Reid (1973) Where Are The Children? A Class Analysis of Foster Care and Adoption, London: Lexington BooksMillar, Ian and Christina Paulson-Ellis (2009) Exploring Infertility Issues in Adoption, London: British Association for Adoption and FosteringMorgan, Patricia (1999) Adoption: The Continuing Debate, IEA Health and Welfare UnitMortimer, Claudia (1994) Immigration and Adoption, London: Trentham Books/SOASNijhoff, M. (1993) Parenthood in Modern Society: Legal and Social Issues for the Twenty First Century, London: DodrechtOwen, Gill and Barbara Jackson (1983) Adoption and Race: Black Asian and Mixed Race Children in White Families, London: Batsford Academic Books/BAAFPark, Shelley (2006) ‘Adoptive Maternal Bodies: A Queer Paradigm for Rethinking Mothering?’, Hypatia, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 201-226Roberts, Dorothy (1999) Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction and the Meaning of Liberty, Vintage Books, New York (Chapter 6)Selman, Peter (Ed.) (2000) Intercountry Adoption: Devlopments, Trends and Perspectives, London: British Agencies for Fostering and Adoption Seymour, Natalie (2007) In Black and White: The story of an open transracial adoption, London: British Agencies for Adoption and FosteringSimon, Rita (1994) The Case for Transracial Adoption, London: American University PressSimon, Rita and Howard Alstein (2004) Adoption, Race and Identity, From Infancy to Young Adulthood, New Brunswick: Transaction PublishersSmolin, David M. (2006) ‘Child Laundering: How the Intercountry Adoption System Legitimizes and Incentivizes the Practices of Buying, Trafficking, Kidnapping, and Stealing Children’, Wayne Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 113-200Weise, Jacqueline (1988) Transracial Adoption: A Black Perspective, Norwich: Social Work MonographsYngvesson, B. (2010) Belonging in an Adopted World: Race, Identity and Transnational Adoption, Chicago: University of Chicago PressAdditional Listening:BBC Radio debate about adoption and black families: Interviews with an African-American father adopting a white child: UK: for Children: Association of Adoption and Fostering: Children’s Hope International: HYPERLINK "" International Adoption Net: HYPERLINK "" Adoption and Fostering Week: HYPERLINK "" Position on International Adoption (against): and Children Together (PACT): HYPERLINK "" : Adoption and Fostering: HYPERLINK "" 12Timing ParenthoodMaria Do Mar PereiraThis week’s lecture focuses on the timing of parenthood, and in particular, the normative boundaries that demarcate the ‘right’ time to become a parent (and especially a mother). By looking at the narratives, representations and experiences of older and younger parents, we will explore the multiple factors that influence the timing of parenthood, the challenges that younger and older parents encounter, and the ways in which moral panics around early and late motherhood impact upon the lived experiences of those becoming parents outside of the ‘right’ time.SeminarIs there a ‘right’ time to become a parent?QuestionsWhat factors impact upon the timing of parenthood?What do the moral panics around younger and older motherhood have in common? How are they different?Core Reading and ListeningBBC Radio Four (2013) More or Less: How Long Can You Wait to Have a Baby?, originally broadcast on 13 September. Available at Gryn, Naomi (2012) ‘Why I’m having my first baby at 51’, Guardian Weekend, 10 November, Available online (see also the comments below the article):, Maggie et al (2001) ‘“I know I’m doing a good job”: canonical and autobiographical narratives of teenage mothers’, Culture, Health and Sexuality, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 279-294Available as an E-journal article:, N. and Johnson, S. (2006) ‘“I think motherhood for me was a bit like a double-edged sword”: the narratives of older mothers’, Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 316-330Available as an E-journal article: ReadingAarvold, J. and C. Buswell (1999) ‘Very Young Motherhood: Whose Problem?’, Youth and Policy, No.64, pp. 1-14Allen, I. and S. Bourke (1998) Teenage mothers: decisions and outcomes, London: Policy Studies InstituteBerryman, Julia (1991) ‘Perspectives on later motherhood’, in Phoenix et al (Eds) Motherhood: Meanings, practices and ideologies, London: SageBullen, Elizabeth et al (2000) ‘New Labour, Social Exclusion and Educational Risk Management: the case of gymslip mums’, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 441-456Breheny, Mary and Christine Stephens (2007) ‘Individual Responsibility and Social Constraint: The construction of adolescent motherhood in social scientific research’, Culture, Health and Sexuality, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 333-346Byrne, Bridget (2006) ‘In Search of a Good Mix: “Race”, Class, Gender and Practices of Mothering’, Sociology, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 1001-1017Carolan, Mary (2005) ‘Doing it Properly: the experience of first mothering over 35 years’, Health Care for Women International, Vol. 26, No. 9, pp. 764-787Cutas, Daniela (2007) ‘Postmenopausal Motherhood: Immoral, Illegal? A case study’, Bioethics, Vol. 21, No. 8, pp. 458-463De Carvalho, Joao Eduardo Coin (2007) ‘How Can a Child be a Mother: Discourse on teenage pregnancy in a Brazilian favela’, Culture, Health and Sexuality, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.109-120Duncan, Simon (2005) ‘Mothering, Class and Rationality’, Sociological Review, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 50-76Duncan, Simon, Rosalind Edwards and Claire Alexancer (2010) Teenage Parents: What’s the Problem?, London: Tufnell PressEarle, Sarah and Gale Letherby (2007) ‘Conceiving Time?: Women who do or do not conceive’, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 233-250Edwards M.E. (2002) ‘Education and Occupations: Reexamining the Conventional Wisdom About Later First Births Among American Mothers’, Sociological Forum, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 423-443Finlay, A. (1996) ‘Teenage Pregnancy, romantic love and social science - an uneasy relationship’, in V. James and J. Gabe (Eds) Health and the Sociology of Emotions, Oxford: BlackwellFuller, Sylvia, et al (2008) ‘Constructing “active citizenship”: Single mothers, welfare and the logics of voluntarism’, Citizenship Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.157-176 Hawkes, G. (1995) ‘Responsibility and Irresponsibility: Young Women and Family Planning’, Sociology, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 257-273Heilborn, Maria Luiza et al. (2007) ‘Teenage Pregnancy and Moral Panic in Brazil’, Culture, Health and Sexuality, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.403-414Higginson, Joanna (1998) ‘Competitive Parenting: The Culture of Teen Mothers’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 135-149Holgate, S., Evans, R and Yuen, F K O (Eds) (2006) Teenage Pregnancy and Parenthood: Global Perspectives, Issues and Interventions, London: Routledge Hudson, F. and B. Ineichen (1991) Taking it Lying down: Sexuality and Teenage Motherhood Basingstoke: MacmillanKidger, Judi (2005) ‘Stories of Redemption? Teenage Mothers as the New Sex Educators’, Sexualities, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 481-496Kiernan, K. (1997) ‘Becoming a Young Parent’, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 406-428Kluger, Jeffrey et al (2013) ‘Too Old to be a Dad?’, Time, Vol. 181, No. 15, pp. 38-43Lawson, A. and D. L. Rhode (1993) The Politics of Pregnancy: Adolescent sexuality and public policy, New Haven, London: Yale University PressLuker, K. (1996) Dubious Conceptions: The Politics of Teenage Pregnancy, Cambridge MA; London: Harvard University PressMacIntyre, S. and Cunningham-Burley, S. (1993) ‘Teenage Pregnancy as a social problem: a perspective from the United Kingdom’, in A. Lawson and D. Rhode (Eds) The Politics of Pregnancy: Adolescent Sexuality and Public Policy, New Haven: Yale University PressMcDermott, E. and H. Graham (2005) ‘Resilient young mothering: social inequalities, late modernity and the “problem” of “teenage” motherhood’, Journal of Youth Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 59-79Mills, M. et al (2011) ‘Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives’, Human Reproduction Update, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 848-860Perrier, M. (2013) ‘No Right Time: Younger and Older Mothers' Accounts of Timing Motherhood’, Sociological Review, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 69-87Phoenix, A. (1991) Young Mothers?, Cambridge: Polity PressRolfe, Alison (2008), ‘“You’ve Got to Grow Up When You’ve Got a Kid”: Marginalised young women’s accounts of motherhood’, Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 299-314Rosenthal, J. L., R.C. Zimmermann and M.V. Sauer (1997) ‘The desire for childbearing in women of advanced reproductive age: findings in a donor oocyte program’, Fertility and Sterility Supplement 1, 18 October, pp. 179-180 Royal College of Obstetrician and Gynaecologists (2009) ‘RCOG Statement of Later Maternal Age’, Press release, issued 15 June, Available Online: , G. (1994) Youngest Mothers, Aldershot: AveburySelman, P. and C. Glendinning (1994) ‘Teenage Pregnancy and Social Policy’, Youth and Policy, Vol. 47, No. 5, pp. 39-58Sevon, Eija (2005) ‘Timing Motherhood: Experiencing and narrating the choice to become a mother’, Feminism and Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 423-443 Shaw, Rachel L. and David C. Giles (2009) ‘Motherhood on Ice: A Media Framing Analysis of Older Mothers in the UK news’, Psychology and Health, Volume 24, No. 2, pp. 221-236Tabberer S. et al (2000) Teenage pregnancy and choice: abortion or motherhood: influences on the decision, York: York Publishing Services for the Joseph Rowntree FoundationWhitman L. et al (2001) Interwoven Lives: Adolescent mothers and their children, PLACE: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesWilson, Helen and Huntington, Annette (2005) ‘Deviant (M)others: The Construction of Teenage Motherhood in Contemporary Discourse’, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 59-76WebsitesBubbalicious: The Place for Young Parents: Over 40: : Stories of Midlife Mothers: Pregnancy Support: Teen Parenting Centre: 13 Who Manages Fertility? The Politics of Contraception Maria Do Mar PereiraContraception has a long history that illustrates women's desire and struggle to achieve control over their reproduction in relation to laws, regulations and instruction by different religions, states and medical professionals. Moreover, decisions over fertility emerge from and are intertwined with the wider social context, including marriage customs, economic factors, cultural prescriptions, and, of course, gender relations. Contraceptive technologies are not ‘neutral’; they are designed, promoted and controlled within the social context, and thus re/produce wider social inequalities and conventions. This week we will consider issues that illustrate the politics of contraception. First, the centrality of ideas about which women are 'fit' to be mothers to the promotion of contraception will be looked at, including eugenic agendas. Second, control of access to contraception will be considered, including the surveillance of women by health professionals. Third, health implications for women using contraception will be examined, including the implication of pharmaceutical companies in the power relationships of contraception. Finally we will ask why the development of contraception has focussed on women users; could there be a male pill?SeminarIs contraception good for women’s health?QuestionsWhat difference does ‘race’ make to women’s experiences of contraception?What difference does intellectual disability make to women’s experiences of contraception?How do discourses of sexuality inform policy making on contraception?Could there / should there be a male pill?Core Reading Barrett, G. and R. Harper (2000) ‘Health Professionals’ Attitudes to the Deregulation of Emergency Contraception (Or the Problem of Female Sexuality)’, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 197-216Available as an E-journal article: , Nelly E. J. (2000) ‘Imagined Men: Representations of Masculinities in Discourse of Male Contraceptive Technology’, in A. Saetnan, N. Oudshoorn and M. Kirejczyk (Eds) Bodies of Technology: Women’s Involvement in Reproductive Medicine, Ohio: Ohio University Press, pp. 123-145Available as an E-extract: , Dorothy (1999) Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty, New York: Vintage (ch. 3 ‘From Norplant to the Contraceptive Vaccine: The New Frontier of Population Control’, pp. 105-149)Available as an E-extract: , Liz, Jan Walmsley, Sarah Earle and Dorothy Atkinson (2012) ‘International Perspectives on the Sterilization of Women with Intellectual Disabilities’, in Sarah Earle, Carol Komarory and Linda Layne (Eds) Understanding Reproductive Loss: Perspectives on Life, Death and Fertility, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 23-36No longer available as an E-book (see alternative below): , Elizabeth, Jan Walmsley, Sarah Earle and Dorothy Atkinson (2012) '"The Silence is Roaring": Sterilization, reproductive rights and women with intellectual disabilities', Disability & Society, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 413-426Additional ReadingAgadjanian, Victor (2002) ‘Men’s Talk about “Women’s Matters”: Gender, Communication, and Contraception in Urban Mozambique’, Gender & Society, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 194-215 Anderson, P. and R. Kitchen (2000) ‘Disability, space and sexuality: access to family planning services’, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 51, No. 8, pp. 1163-1173Bashford, Alison and Phillippa Levine (Eds) (2010) The Oxford Handbook of Eugenics, New York: Oxford University PressFoster, P. (1995) Women and the Health Care Industry: An Unhealthy Relationship, Buckingham: Open University Press (ch. 1 ‘Contraception and Abortion’)Gordon, L. (1990) Women's Body, Women's Rights: Birth Control in America, London: Penguin BooksGrant, N. J. (1992) The Selling of Contraception: The Dalkon Shield Case, Sexuality and Women's Autonomy, Columbus: Ohio State University PressHawkes, G. (1995) 'Responsibility and Irresponsibility: Young Women and Family Planning', Sociology, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 257-273Holland, J., C. Ramazanoglu, S. Scott, S. Sharpe and R. Thomson (1990) ‘Don't Die of Ignorance’ I Nearly Died of Embarrassment: Condoms in Context, London: The Tufnell Press. (Also in Jackson and Scott (1996) Feminism and Sexuality, Edinburgh: EUP)Jackson, M. (1994) The Real Facts of Life: Feminism and the Politics of Sexuality c1850-1940, London: Taylor and Francis (especially chapter on Birth Control Movement)Jackson, Emily (2001) Regulating Reproduction: Law, Technology and Autonomy, Oxford, Portland Oregan: Hart Publishing (ch. 2 ‘Birth Control’)Jütte, Robert (2007) Contraception: A history, translated by Vicky Russell, Cambridge: PolityKammen, J. van and N. Oudshoorn (2002) ‘Gender and Risk Assessment in Contraceptive Technologies’, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 436-461Kohn, T. and R. McKechnie (Eds) (1999) Extending the Boundaries of Care: Medical Ethics and Caring Practices, Oxford: Berg (Especially chapter on Depo-Provera)Kuo, L. (1998) ‘Secondary Discrimination as a Standard for Feminist Social Policy: Norplant and Probation, A Case Study’, Signs Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 907-944Lowe, Pam (2005) ‘Embodied Expertise: Women’s Perceptions of the Contraception Consultation’, Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 361-378 Lowe, Pam (2005) ‘Contraception and Heterosex: An Intimate Relationship’, Sexualities, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 75-92Lowe P., R. Sidhu R & F. Griffiths (2007) ‘Barriers faced by Pakistani women seeking contraception’, Diversity in Health and Social Care, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 69-76McLaren, A. (1990) A History of Contraception, Oxford: Basil BlackwellNeubeck, Kenneth and Noel Cazenave (2001) Welfare Racism: Playing the Race Card Against America’s Poor, New York: RoutledgeNorsworthy, Kathryn L., Margaret A. McLaren and Laura D. Waterfield (2012) ‘Women’s Power in Relationships: A Matter of Social Justice’, in Joan C. Chrisler (Ed.) Reproductive Justice: A Global Concern, Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger, pp. 57-76Oudshoorn, Nelly E. J. (2003) The Male Pill: A Biography of a Technology in the Making, Durham; London: Duke University PressPeel, R. (Ed.) (1997) Marie Stopes, Eugenics and the English Birth Control Movement, London: The Galton InstitutePollock, S. (1984) ‘Refusing to take women seriously: “Side effects” and the Politics of Contraception’, in R. Arditti et al (Eds) Test-tube Women: What Future for Motherhood? Boston: PandoraPollock, Scarlet (1985) ‘Sex and the Contraceptive Act’, in Hilary Homans (Ed.) The Sexual Politics of Reproduction, Aldershot: GowerRiddle, John M. (1992) Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University PressRoberts, Dorothy (1999) Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty New York: Vintage (Ch. 4 ‘Making Reproduction a Crime’) Rose, June (1993) Marie Stopes and the Sexual Revolution, London, Boston: Faber & FaberRussell, Andrew, Sobo, Elisa and Thompson, Mary (Eds) (2000) Contraception across cultures: technologies, choices, constraints, Oxford: BergRusso, Felipe and Julia R. Seinberg (2012) ‘Contraception and Abortion: Critical Tools for Achieving Reproductive Justice’, in Joan C. Chrisler (Ed.) Reproductive Justice: A Global Concern, Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger, pp. 145-172Seal, Vivien (1990) Whose Choice? Working Class Women and the Control of Fertility, London: Fortress (ch. 2 ‘The Struggle for Birth Control’)Stevens, Dionne P., Vrushali Patil and Tami L. Thomas (2012) ‘STI Prevention and Control for Women: A Reproductive Justice Approach to Understanding Global Women’s Experiences’, in Joan C. Chrisler (Ed.) Reproductive Justice: A Global Concern, Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger, pp. 117-144Takeshita, Chikako (2010) ‘The IUD in Me: On Embodying Feminist Technoscience Studies’, Science as Culture, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 37-60Thomas, Hilary (1985) ‘The Medical Construction of the Contraceptive Career’, in Hilary Homans (Ed.) The Sexual Politics of Reproduction, Aldershot: GowerTilly, Liz, Jan Walmsley, Sarah Earle and Dorothy Atkinson (2012) ‘International Perspectives on the Sterilization of Women with Intellectual Disabilities’, in Sarah Earle, Carol Komarory and Linda Layne (Eds) Understanding Reproductive Loss: Perspectives on Life, Death and Fertility, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 23-36Watkins, E. S. (1998) On the Pill: A Social History of Oral Contraceptives 1950-1970, Baltimore, London: John Hopkins University PressWaxman-Fiduccia B. (1994) ‘Up Against Eugenics: Disabled Women's Challenge to Receive Reproductive Health Services’, Sexuality and Disability, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 185-171Welner, S. (1999) ‘Contraceptive Choices for Women with Disabilities’, Sexuality and Disability, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 209-214Wong, A. (2000) ‘The Work of Disabled Women Seeking Reproductive Health Care’, Sexuality and Disability, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 301-306Wynn, L.L. and James Trussell (2006) ‘The Social Life of Emergency Contraception in the United States’, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 297-320 WebsitesBBC Medical Ethics and Contraception: : Planned Parenthood Federation: Planning Association: Stopes International: Choices: Contraception: Week 14Whose body is it anyway? The politics of abortionMaria Do Mar PereiraThe phrase ‘a woman’s right to choose’ has been used as a rallying cry by feminists in the pursuit of safe, legal abortion – ideally on demand. However, by using the language of ‘rights’, it can be argued, feminists have provided opponents of abortion with a valuable weapon to use against them. Contestation around abortion is increasingly framed as a battle between women’s rights, foetal rights and fathers’ rights, particularly since the advent of new reproductive technologies including, most significantly, ultrasound. The session will outline the historical context of feminist demands for safe, legal abortion, detailing the various interest groups that feel entitled to be considered in debates over abortion. It will consider the shifts in the debate around the concept of ‘foetal rights’ instigated by the advent of the ‘new reproductive technologies’, as well as considering the ‘eugenic’ dimension of selective abortion of ‘impaired’ foetuses, where feminist principles are in tension with the disability movement. SeminarWhat arguments have feminists used to win or maintain access to abortion? QuestionsWhat arguments have anti-choice groups used to deny or restrict access to abortion?In what ways have the new reproductive technologies changed the terms of the abortion debate?What are the key issues for disability rights campaigners with regards to the abortion time limit in the UK? Core Reading and ViewingAmerican Portrait Films (1984), The Silent Scream. Available at (WARNING: this video contains graphic images of abortion; if you are worried these might disturb you, do not watch it)Fadiman, D. (director) (2004) Motherhood by Choice, Not by Chance. Available at Rose, M. and Hatfield, M. R. (2007) ‘Republican motherhood redux?: women as contingent citizens in 21st century America’, Journal of Women, Politics and Policy, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 5-30Available as an E-journal article:, M, (2006) ‘Disability Rights and Selective Abortion’ in L.J. Davis (Ed.) The Disability Studies Reader, London: Routledge, pp. 105-116Available as an E-book:, L. (2002) ‘Feminism and abortion politics: choice, rights and reproductive freedom’, Women’s Studies International Forum Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 335-345Available as an E-journal article: ReadingBennett, B. (2004) Abortion, Dartmouth, Aldershot; Burlington, Vt: AshgateBerer, M. (1988) ‘Whatever happened to a woman’s right to choose?’, Feminist Review No. 29, pp. 24-37Browner, C. H. (2000) ‘Situating women’s reproductive activities’, American Anthropologist Vol. 102, No. 4, pp.773-778Chavkin, W. (1992) ‘Women and foetus: the social construction of conflict’, in C. Feinman (Ed.) The Criminalisation of a Woman’s Body, New York; London: Haworth Press, pp. 193-202Daniels, C. (1993) At Women’s Expense: State Power and the Politics of Fetal Rights, London: Harvard University PressDavis-Floyd, R. and Dumit, J. (1998) Cyborg Babies: From Techno-Sex to Techno Tots, London: RoutledgeFrancome, C. (2004) Abortion in the USA and the UK, Aldershot: AshgateFranklin, S. et al (1991) Off-Centre: Feminism and Cultural Studies, London: Harper Collins (see chapters from the section entitled ‘In the wake of the Alton Bill’)Fried, M. G. (Ed.) (1990) From Abortion to Reproductive Freedom: Transforming a Movement, Boston: South End Press (especially chapter by A. Davis ‘Racism, birth control and reproductive rights’)Fried, M. (2006) ‘Politics of abortion’, Indian Journal of Gender Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 229-245Ginsburg, F. and Rapp, R. (1995) Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction, London; Los Angeles: University of California PressGithens, M. and McBride Stetson, D. (Eds) (1996) Abortion Politics: Public Policy in Cross Cultural Perspective, London: RoutledgeHeumann, S. G. (2007) ‘Abortion and politics in Nicaragua: the women’s movement in the debate on the Abortion Law reform 1999-2002’, Culture, Health and Sexuality, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 217-231Himmelweit, S. (1988) ‘More than “a woman’s right to choose”?’, Feminist Review, No. 29, pp. 38-56Hubbard, R. (2006) ‘Abortion and Disability: Who Should and Should Not Inhabit the World?’, in L.J. Davis (Ed.) The Disability Studies Reader, London: Routledge, pp. 93-104Hussain, S. (2003) ‘Gender and reproductive behaviour: the role of men’, Indian Journal of Gender Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 45-76Jackson, E. (2001) Regulating Reproduction: Law, Technology and Autonomy, Oxford: Hart Publishing (ch.3 Abortion)Kallianes, V. and Rubenfeld, P. (1997) ‘Disabled women and reproductive rights’, Disability and Society, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.203-221Kramer, A-M. (2005) ‘Gender, nation and the abortion debate in the Polish media’ in V. Tolz and S. Booth (Eds) Nation and Gender in Contemporary Europe, Manchester: Manchester University PressKuhse, Helga and Peter Singer (Eds) (2012) A Companion to Bioethics, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, Part IV – Before Birth: Issues involving embryos and fetusesLewiecki-Wilson, Cynthia (2011) ‘Uneasy Subjects: Disability, feminism and abortion’, in Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson and Jen Cellio (Eds) Disability and Mothering: Liminal Spaces of Embodied Knowledge, Syracuse: Syracuse University PressMacPherson, Y. (2007) ‘Images and icons: harnessing the power of the media to reduce sex-selective abortion in India’, Gender in Development, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 413-423Mason, C. (2000) ‘Cracked babies and the partial birth of a nation: millennialism and fetal citizenship’, Cultural Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 35-60Oaks, L. (2000) ‘Smoke-filled wombs and fragile foetuses: the social politics of fetal representation’, Sign, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 63-108Oaks, L. (2002) ‘Abortion is part of the Irish experience, it is part of what we are: the transformation of public discourses on Irish abortion policy’, Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 315-333Overall, Christine (2012) Why Have Children: The ethical debate, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, Ch. 3 (When Prospective Parents Disagree)Palmer, J. (2000) ‘Seeing is knowing’, Feminist Theory Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.173-189Petchesky, R. (1987) ‘Foetal images: the power of visual culture in the politics of reproduction’, in M. Stanworth (Ed.) Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood and Medicine, Cambridge: Polity Press pp. 57-80Randall, V. (1992) ‘Great Britain and dilemmas for feminist strategy in the 1980s: the case of abortion and reproductive rights’, in J. M. Bystydzienski (Ed.) Women Transforming Politics: Worldwide Strategies for Empowerment, Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, pp. 80-94Rabindranathan, S. (2003) ‘Women’s decision to undergo abortion’, Indian Journal of Gender Studies, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 457-473Rapp, R. (2000) Testing Women, Testing the Foetus: the Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America, London: RoutledgeRiddle, John M. (1992) Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University PressRoberts, Julie (2012) The Visualised Foetus: a Cultural and Political Analysis of Ultrasound Imagery, Farnham: Ashgate (Ch. 4 ‘The Ultimate Image in the Abortion Debate’)Ruhl, P. L. (2002) ‘Disarticulating liberal subjectivities: abortion and fetal protection’, Feminist Studies, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 37-60Russo, Felipe and Julia R. Seinberg (2012) ‘Contraception and Abortion: Critical Tools for Achieving Reproductive Justice’, in Joan C. Chrisler (Ed.) Reproductive Justice: A Global Concern, Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger, pp. 145-172Schrage, L. (2002) ‘From reproductive rights to reproductive Barbie: post-porn modernism and abortion’, Feminist Studies Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 61-93Seal, V. (1990) Whose Choice? Working Class Women and the Control of Fertility, London: Fortress (chapter 3: Abortion – the Campaign for the Right to Choose)Sedgh, G. et al (2007) ‘Legal abortion worldwide: incidence and recent trends’, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 216-225Sharp, K. and Earle, S. (2002) ‘Feminism, abortion and disability: irreconcilable differences?’, Disability and Society, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 137-145Smyth, L. (2005) Abortion and Nation: the Politics of Reproduction in Contemporary Ireland, Aldershot: AshgateStetson, D.M. (1996) ‘Feminist perspectives on abortion and reproductive technologies’, in M. Githens and D. McBride Stetson (Eds) Abortion Politics: Public Policy in Cross-Cultural Perspective, London: RoutledgeStormer, N. (2000) ‘Prenatal space’, Signs, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 109-144Woolford, J. and Woolford, A. (2007) ‘Perspectives: abortion and genocide: the unbridgeable gap’, Social Politics Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 126-153WebsitesAbortion Rights: (website of merged National Abortion Campaign and Abortion Law Reform Association)National Abortion Federation (US): National Right to Life (US): : (one of UK’s leading ‘pro-life’ campaigns)Week 15Reproductive Disruptions: InfertilityCaroline WrightSo far, we have explored what might be considered as ‘normative’ human reproduction, which assumes parenthood to be a normative, taken-for-granted trajectory in the life-course of (most) adults, particularly for women. But in this lecture we contemplate infertility as a disruption to that supposed trajectory. In many cases, reproduction goes awry and reproductive trajectories may be disrupted through illness, miscarriage, still-birth. What becomes clear is that the meanings of infertility are culturally shaped, as are responses to infertility, and that infertility bears particularly heavily on women. In this lecture, we explore the effects of infertility on women and men within global contexts.SeminarHow is infertility gendered?QuestionsHow is infertility viewed in nation-states where fertility regulation is part of national political discourse (anti-natalist states)?How is infertility viewed in nation-states where large families are considered the norm (pro-natalist states)?Should access to NRTs designed to address infertility be considered a basic health right or priority in areas of high or over population?To what extent does conflict exist between medical and social models of infertility?Core ReadingBharadwaj, A. (2003) ‘Why adoption is not an option in India: the visibility of infertility, the secrecy of donor insemination, and other cultural complexities’, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 56, No. 9, pp. 1867-1880Available as an E-journal article:, Gayle (2012) ‘“Infertility” and “Involuntary Childlessness”: Losses, Ambivalences and Resolutions’, in Sarah Earle, Carol Komarory and Linda Layne (Eds) Understanding Reproductive Loss: Perspectives on Life, Death and Fertility, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 9-22Available as an E-book: , R. (2001) ‘“Infertility Makes You Invisible”: Gender, Health and the Negotiation of Fertility in Northern Botswana’, Journal of Southern African Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 349-452Available as an E-journal article: Balen, F. and M. Inhorn (2002) ‘Interpreting Infertility: A View from the Social Sciences’, in M. Inhorn and F. van Balen (Eds) Infertility Around the Globe: New Thinking on Childlessness, Gender and Reproductive Technologies, London: Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, pp. 3-17Available as an E-extract: ReadingBecker, G. and R. D. Nachtingall (1992) ‘Eager for Medicalisation: The social production of infertility as a disease’, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 456-471Brenborg, Ann Davidsson (2012) ‘The Memorialization of Stillbirth in the Internet Age’, in Sarah Earle, Carol Komarory and Linda Layne (Eds) Understanding Reproductive Loss: Perspectives on Life, Death and Fertility, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 155-166Britt, E. C. (2001) Conceiving Normalcy: Rhetoric, Law and the Double Binds of Infertility, Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama PressCeballo, R. (1999) ‘“The only black woman walking the face of the earth who cannot have a baby”: two women’s stories’, In M. Romero and A.J. Stewart (Eds) Women’s Untold Stories: Breaking Silence, Talking Back, Voicing Complexity, London: Routledge, pp. 3-19Culley, L., N. Hudson and F. van Rooij (2009) Marginalised Reproduction: Ethnicity, Infertility and Reproductive Technologies, Earthscan: London Dodoo, Nii-Amoo F. and A.E. Frost (2008) ‘Gender in African population research: the fertility/ reproductive health example’, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 34, pp. 431-452Dyer, Karen, Khadija Mitu and Cecilia Vindola-Padros (2012) ‘The Social Shaping of Fertility Loss Due to Cancer Treatment: A Comparative Perspective’, in Sarah Earle, Carol Komarory and Linda Layne (Eds) Understanding Reproductive Loss: Perspectives on Life, Death and Fertility, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 37-50Earle, S. and G. Letherby (2007) ‘Conceiving time? Women who do or do not conceive’, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 233-250Greil, A. L. (1991) Not yet Pregnant: Infertile Couples in Contemporary America, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press Handwerker, L. (1995) ‘“The Hen that Can’t Lay An Egg”: Conceptions of Female Infertility in Modern China’, in J. Urla and J. Terry (Eds) Deviant Bodies: Critical Perspectives on Difference in Science and Popular Culture, pp. 358-387Hellum, A. and Stewart, J. (1999) Women’s Human Rights and Legal Pluralism in Africa: Mixed Norms and Identities in Infertility Management in Zimbabwe, Oslo: Mond BooksInhorn, M. (1994) Quest for Conception: Gender, Infertility and Egyptian Medical Traditions, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press Inhorn, M. and van Balen, F. (Eds) (2002) Infertility Around the Globe: New Thinking on Childlessness, Gender and Reproductive Technologies, London: Berkeley, Calif.: University of California PressInhorn, M. C. (2003) Local Babies, Global Science: Gender, Religion, and In Vitro Fertilisation in Egypt, London: RoutledgeInhorn, M. C. (2003) ‘Global infertility and the globalisation of new reproductive technologies: illustrations from Egypt’, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 56, No. 9, pp. 1837-1851Inhorn, M.C. (2008) ‘Middle Eastern masculinities in the age of new reproductive technologies: male infertility and stigma in Egypt and Lebanon’, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 162-182Komarory, Carol (2012) ‘Managing Emotions at the Time of Stillbirth and Neonatal Death’, in Sarah Earle, Carol Komarory and Linda Layne (Eds) Understanding Reproductive Loss: Perspectives on Life, Death and Fertility, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 193-204Keeble, S. (1994) Infertility, Feminism and the New Technologies, London: Fabian SocietyLayne, L. (1999) ‘“True gifts from God”: motherhood, sacrifice and enrichment in the case of pregnancy loss’, in L. Layne (Ed.) Transformative Motherhood: On Giving and Getting in Consumer Culture, New York: New York University PressLayne, L. (2000) ‘Baby things as fetishes? Memorial goods, simulacra and the “realness” problem of pregnancy loss’, in H. Ragone and F.W. Twine (Eds) Ideologies and Technologies of Motherhood: Race, Class, Sexuality, Nationalism, London: RoutledgeLayne, L. (2003) Motherhood Lost: A Feminist Account of Pregnancy Loss in America, London: RoutledgeLayne, Linda (2012) ‘“Troubling the Normal”: “Angel Babies” and the Canny/Uncanny Nexus’, in Sarah Earle, Carol Komarory and Linda Layne (Eds) Understanding Reproductive Loss: Perspectives on Life, Death and Fertility, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 129-142Martin, E. (1996) ‘The egg and the sperm: how science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles’, in E.F. Keller and H.E. Longina (Eds) Feminism and Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 103-120Millar, I. and Paulson-Ellis, C. (2009) Exploring Infertility Issues in Adoption, London: British Association for Adoption and FosteringMoore, Lisa Jean (2007) Sperm Counts: Overcome by man’s most precious fluid, New York: New York University Press, Ch. 2 (‘Lashing their tails: science discovers sperm’)ORC Macro and the WHO (2004) Infecundity, Infertility, and Childlessness in Developing Countries. Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Comparative Reports No. 9 Available Online: Oudshoorn, N. (2003) The Male Pill: A Biography of a Technology in the Making, Durham; London: Duke University PressPeel, Elizabeth and Ruth Cain (2012) ‘“Silent” Miscarriage and Deafening Heteronormativity: A British Experiential and Critical Feminist Account’, in Sarah Earle, Carol Komarory and Linda Layne (Eds) Understanding Reproductive Loss: Perspectives on Life, Death and Fertility, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 79-92Pfeffer, N. (1993) The Stork and the Syringe: a Political History of Reproductive Medicine, Cambridge: Polity PressRiesman, C. (2002) ‘Positioning gender identity in narratives of infertility: south Indian women’s lives in context’, in M. Inhorn and F. van Balen (Eds) Infertility Around the Globe: New Thinking on Childlessness, Gender and Reproductive Technologies, London; Berkeley Calif.: University of California PressRubin, Lisa R. and Aliza Philips (2012) ‘Infertility and Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Matters of Reproductive Justice’, in Joan C. Chrisler (Ed.) Reproductive Justice: A Global Concern, Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger, pp. 173-200Sandelowski, M. and de Laceuy, S. (2002) ‘The uses of a “disease”: infertility as rhetorical vehicle’, In M. Inhorn and F. van Balen (Eds) Infertility Around the Globe: New thinking on Childlessness, Gender and Reproductive Technologies, London; Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, pp. 33-51Thompson, C. M. (2002) ‘Fertile ground: feminists theorize infertility’, in M. Inhorn and F. van Balen (Eds) Infertility Around the Globe: New thinking on Childlessness, Gender and Reproductive Technologies, London; Berkeley, Calif.: University of California PressThompson, Susannah (2012) ‘“As If She Never Existed”: Changing Understandings of Perinatal Loss in Australia in the Twentieth and Early Twenty First Centuries’, in Sarah Earle, Carol Komarory and Linda Layne (Eds) Understanding Reproductive Loss: Perspectives on Life, Death and Fertility, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 167-178Throsby, K. (2004) When IVF Fails: Feminism, Infertility and the Negotiation of Normality, Houndmills: PalgraveWebb, R. E. and Daniluk, J. C. (1999) ‘The end of the line: infertile men’s experiences of being unable to produce a child’, Men and Masculinities, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 6-25Woodruff, T. K. et al (Eds) (2010) Oncofertility: Ethical, Legal, Social and Medical Perspectives, New York: SpringerWoodthorpe, Kate (2012) ‘Baby Gardens: A Privilege or a Predicament’, in Sarah Earle, Carol Komarory and Linda Layne (Eds) Understanding Reproductive Loss: Perspectives on Life, Death and Fertility, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 143-154Zegers-Hochschild, F., Adamson, G. D., de Mouzon, J., Ishihara, O., Mounsoure, R., Nygren, K., Sullivan, E. and Venderpoel, S. (2009) ‘International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology’, Fertility and Sterility, Vol. 92, No. 5, pp. 1520-1524WebsitesInfertility Network UK: Association: to Life: Support for the Involuntary Childless: : Miscarriage: Infertility: 16Reading WeekNo lecture or seminars. This is a chance to finalize your project presentation ready for next week.Please note that this is a department wide reading week, unless a particular module convenor has advised you otherwise.Week 17Project Presentation WeekThe lecture slot and your seminar slot this week will be dedicated to the presentation of group projects, hard copies of which should be handed in to your seminar tutor at the start of the seminar (see formative work above).Week 18 IVF and Gamete DonationCaroline WrightSince the birth of the first IVF baby in 1978, Louise Brown, assisted conception techniques have become widespread. Moreover, stories of ‘test-tube’ babies are a common feature in the media, either as the latest ‘miracle birth’ or in terms of moral outrage against another ‘undesirable’ mother. Although accounts of IVF are commonplace, they rarely address some of the most important implications that these technologies have for women, including the impact on women's bodies and psyches. We will consider these, and also look at examples of IVF internationally to assess the importance of context in terms of how IVF is gendered. Since IVF may also rely on donated gametes, eggs and/or sperm, we will also consider the nature of the exchange, including recently agreed financial incentives to donate in the UK, and the challenges posed to the normative categories of parenthood and kinship.SeminarDo we / should we have the right to reproduce?QuestionsWhat have feminists got to fear from IVF and what do women’s owns accounts of IVF contribute to the debate?How much does context matter when considering gender and IVF?Where do men figure in IVF?How does gamete donation challenge normative categories of parenthood and kinship?How is gamete donation gendered?Should people be paid for the donation of gametes?Core ReadingHuman Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (2012) ‘Implications of the Outcomes of the Donation Review’, Chair’s letter following public consultation ‘Donating Sperm and Eggs: Have your say’, Available online: , K. (2006) ‘Constructing families and kinship through donor insemination’, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 261-283Available as an E-journal article: , M. C. (2007) ‘Masturbation, semen collection and men’s IVF experiences: anxieties in the Muslim world’, Body & Society, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 37-53Available as an E-journal article: , K. (2004) When IVF Fails: Feminism, Infertility and the Negotiation of Normality, Houndmills: Palgrave (Chapter 6: ‘Taking Responsibility’)Available as an E-book: ReadingAlmeling, R. (2006) ‘“Why do you want to be a donor?”: gender and the production of altruism in egg and sperm donation’, New Genetics and Society, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 143-157Almeling, R. (2007) ‘Selling genes, selling gender: egg agencies, sperm banks and the medical market in genetic material’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 72, No. 3, pp. 319-340Arditti, R. et al (1989) Test Tube Women, London: Pandora (especially chapter by M. Saxton ‘Born and Unborn: The Implications of Reproductive Technologies for people with Disabilities’)Birke, L., S. Himmelweit and G. Vines (1990) Tomorrow's Child, London: ViragoCahn, Naomi R. (2013) The New Kinship: Constructing Donor-Conceived Families, New York: New York University PressCellio, Jen (2011) ‘“Healthy, Accomplished and Attractive”: Visual representations of “fitness” in egg donors’, in Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson and Jen Cellio (Eds) Disability and Mothering: Liminal Spaces of Embodied Knowledge, Syracuse: Syracuse University PressCorea, Gena (1985) The Mother Machine: Reproductive Technologies from Artificial Insemination to Artificial Wombs, London: The Women’s PressCulley, L., Hudson, N. and van Rooji, F. (2009) Marginalized Reproduction: Ethnicity, Infertility and Reproductive Technologies, London; Sterling VA.: EarthscanDaniels, K.R., Lewis, G.M. and Gillett, W. (1995) ‘Telling donor insemination offspring about their conception: the nature of couples’ decision-making’, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 40, No. 9, pp. 1213-1220Denny, E. (1994) ‘Liberation or Oppression?: Radical Feminism and in vitro fertilization’, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 62-80Edwards, J. et al (Eds) (1993) Technologies of Procreation: Kinship in the Age of Assisted Conception, London: RoutledgeFarquhar, D. (1996) The Other Machine, London: RoutledgeFranklin, S. (1993) ‘Making Representations: the parliamentary debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act’, in J. Edwards, S. Franklin, E. Hirsch, F. Price, & M. Strathern (Eds) Technologies of Procreation: kinship in the age of assisted conception, London: Routledge, pp. 127-170Franklin, S. (1997) Embodied Progress: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception, London: RoutledgeFranklin, S. and H. Ragone (1998) Reproducing Reproduction, Philadelphia: University of Pennyslvania PressGrace, V.M., Daniels, K.R. and Gillett, W. (2007) ‘The donor, the father, and the imaginary constitution of the family: parents’ constructions in the case of donor insemination’, Social Science and Medicine Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 301-314 Handwerker, L. (1995) ‘The Social and Ethical Implications of In-vitro Fertilization in Contemporary China’, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 355-363Handwerker, L. (2002) ‘The politics of making modern babies in China: reproductive technologies and the “new” eugenics’, in M. Inhorn and F. van Balen (Eds) Infertility Around the Globe: New Thinking on Childlessness, Gender and Reproductive Technologies, London; Berkeley Calif.: University of California PressHanson, F.A. (2001) ‘Donor insemination: Eugenic and feminist implications’, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 287- 311Hartouni, V. (1997) Cultural Conceptions, Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota PressHFEA (1998) ‘Paid egg sharing to be regulated, not banned’, Press release, 10 December, Available online: (2000) ‘Guidance for Egg Sharing Arrangements’, 28 September, Available online:, M. (2003) Global Nature, Global Science: Gender, Religion and In Vitro Fertilisation in Egypt, New York: RoutledgeKirkman, M. (2003) ‘Egg and embryo donation and the meaning of motherhood’, Women and Health, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 1-18Klein, R. D. (1987) ‘What’s “new” about the “new” reproductive technologies?’, in Gena Corea et al (Eds) Man-Made Women: How New Reproductive Technologies Affect Women Bloomington: Indiana University Press Meerabeau, L. (1991) ‘Husbands’ participation in fertility treatment: they also serve who only stand and wait’, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 396-410Moore, Lisa Jean (2007) Sperm Counts: Overcome by man’s most precious fluid, New York: New York University Press, Ch. 5 (‘The family jewels: sperm banks and the crisis of fatherhood’)Nahman, M. (2006) ‘Materializing Israeliness: difference and mixture in transnational ova donation’, Science as Culture, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 199-213Nahman, M (2008) ‘Romanian egg sellers, “dignity” and feminist alliances in transnational ova exchanges’, European Journal of Women’s Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 133-135Nordqvist, Petra (2010) ‘Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Family Resemblances in Lesbian Donor Conception’, Sociology, Vol. 44, No. 6, pp. 1128-1144Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2010) Give and take? Human bodies in medicine and research. Consultation Paper, AprilAvailable online:(1).pdf Oakley, A. (1993) Essays on Women, Health & Medicine, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press (Ch. 13 ‘Technologies of Procreation: Hazards for Women and the Social Order’)Pfeffer, N. (1993) The Stork and the Syringe, Cambridge: Polity PressPhillips, A. (2011) ‘It’s my body and I’ll do what I like with it: Bodies as Objects and Property’, Political Theory, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 724-748Phillips, A. (2013) Our Bodies, Whose Property?, Princeton: Princeton University Press, (Ch. 4 ‘Spare Parts and Desperate Needs’) Roberts, Dorothy (1999) Killing the Black Body: race, reproduction, and the meaning of liberty, New York: Vintage (Ch. 6 ‘Race and the New Reproduction’)Roberts, Elizabeth F.S. (2012) God’s Laboratory: Assisted Reproduction in the Andes, Berkeley: University of California PressRubin, Lisa R. and Aliza Philips (2012) ‘Infertility and Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Matters of Reproductive Justice’, in Joan C. Chrisler (Ed.) Reproductive Justice: A Global Concern, Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger, pp. 173-200Saetnan, A.R., Oudshoorn, N. et al (Eds) (2000) Bodies of Technology: Women’s Involvement with Reproductive Medicine, Columbus: Ohio State University PressShaw, R (2008) ‘Rethinking reproductive gifts as body projects’, Sociology, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 11-28Spallone, Patricia and Deborah Lynn Steinberg (Eds) (1987) Made to Order: The Myth of Reproductive and Genetic Progress, Oxford: Pergamon Press Spallone, P. (1989) Beyond Conception, Basingstoke: MacmillanStacey. M. (1992) Changing Human Reproduction, London: SageStanworth, M. (1987) Reproductive Technologies, Cambridge: Polity Press (especially chapters by Michelle Stanworth and Janet Gallagher) Steinberg, D. (1997) Bodies in Glass: Genetics, Eugenics and Embryo Ethics, Manchester: Manchester University Press (especially Ch. 1 ‘Writing Recombinant bodies: the professional genea/logics of IVF’)Throsby, K. and Gill, R. (2004) ‘“It’s different for men”: masculinity and IVF’, Men and Masculinities, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 330-348Throsby, K. (2006) ‘The unaltered body?: Rethinking the body when IVF fails’, Science Studies Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 77-97WebsitesFINNRAGE: Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) Website: pages about reviews and public consultations on donation of sperm, eggs and embryos: pages about the National Donation Strategy, to encourage egg and sperm donation: Infertility Network: UK Clinical Commissioning Groups and IVF Funding: Gamete Donation Trust: 2013 Guideline on Fertility: At a Time: Better Outcomes From Fertility Treatment: ‘Right to Life’ campaign against egg donation: Week 19Genetics – our reproductive futuresCaroline WrightThis week we will consider the emerging genetic technologies, focusing first on technologies of genetic selection and the so-called ‘designer babies’ and ‘saviour siblings’, and then on stem cell research and therapeutic cloning technologies – an area of scientific research that is dependent on a supply of eggs and embryos from fertility treatment. We will explore the ways in which the gendered body is constructed in the public and scientific debates on reproductive genetics, and the role of women (and their body parts) in the genetic revolution. We will also consider critiques of new genetic technologies from critical disability scholars and activists. Finally we will examine the latest research and consultation on mitochondria replacement (whereby any children born following mitochrondria replacement will have inherited nuclear DNA from their parents and mitochrondrial DNA from a donor, thus, arguably, three genetic parents). SeminarWhat do you understand by the term ‘designer babies’? Why does the term Questions incite such strong controversy and is the controversy justified?What is the case for and against ‘saviour siblings’?What can feminism and critical disability scholars contribute to the debates around the new reproductive and genetic technologies? Considering the HFEA consultation, what social and ethical issues are raised by the potential of mitochondrial replacement, for potential donors, recipients and wider society? Core Reading Boardman, F. (2011) ‘Negotiating Discourses of Maternal Responsibility, Disability and Reprogenetics’, in C. Lewiecki-Wilson and J. Cellio (Eds) Disability and Mothering: Liminal Spaces of Embodied Knowledge, New York: Syracuse University Press, pp. 34 – 49Available as an E-extract: Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (2013) Mitochondria Replacement Consultations: Advice to Government, See pp. 1-31 [this is a very long document!]Available online: , C. and Throsby, K. (2008) ‘Paid to share: IVF patients, eggs and stem cell research’, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 159-169 Available as an E-journal article:, S. and M. Sleeboom-Faulkner (2010) ‘Choosing offspring: Prenatal genetic testing for thallassaemia and the production of a “saviour sibling” in China’, Culture, Health and Sexuality, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 167-175Available as an E-journal article: ReadingAndrews, L. B. (1999) The Clone Age: Adventures in the New World of Reproductive Technology, New York: Henry Holt and CompanyAtkin, K. (2003) ‘Ethnicity and the politics of the new genetics: principles and engagement’, Ethnicity and Health, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 91-109Chadwick, R. and M. Levitt (2006) ‘Genetic Technology: A Threat to Deafness’, in H. Kuhse and P. Singer (Eds) Bioethics: An Anthology (2nd edition), Malden, MA, Oxford, Victoria: Blackwell, pp. 137-144Ehrich, K., Williams, C. and Farsides, B. (2008) ‘The embryo as moral work object: PGD/IVF staff views and experiences’, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 772-787Ettore, E. (2000) ‘Reproductive genetics, gender and the body: “please doctor, may I have a normal baby”’, Sociology, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 402-420Ettore, E. (2002) Reproductive Genetics, Gender and the Body, London: RoutledgeFranklin, S. (2001) ‘Culturing biology: cell lines for the second millennium’, Health, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 335-354Franklin, S. and Roberts, C. (2006) Born and Made: An Ethnography of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, Oxford: Princeton University PressFukuyama, F. (2003) Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the biotechnology revolution London, Profile BooksGosden, R. (1999) Designer Babies: the Brave New World of Reproductive Technology, London: PhoenixHandwerker, L. (2003) ‘New Genetic Technologies and their Impact on Women: A feminist perspective’, Gender and Development, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 114-125Kerr, A. and Shakespeare, T. (2002) Genetic Politics: from Eugenics to Genome, Cheltenham: New Clarion PressKuhse, Helga and Peter Singer (Eds) (2012) A Companion to Bioethics, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, Part VI – New GeneticsMcKibben, B. (2003) Enough: Genetic Engineering and the End of Human Nature, London: BloomsburyOverboe, J. (2007) ‘Disability and Genetics: Affirming the Bare Life (the State of Exception)’, Canadian Review of Sociology, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 219-235Parens E. and Asch, A. (2000) Prenatal testing and disability rights, Washington, DC: Georgetown. University PressParry, S. (2003) ‘The politics of cloning: mapping the rhetorical convergence of embryos and stem cells in parliamentary debates’, New Genetics and Society, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 145-168Parry, S. (2005) ‘(Re)constructing embryos in stem cell research: exploring the meaning of embryos for people involved in fertility treatments’, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 62, No. 10, pp. 2349-2359Peterson, A. (2001) ‘Biofantasies: genetics and medicine in the new print media’, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 52, No. 8, pp. 1255-68Purdy, L. (2006) ‘Genetics and reproductive risk: can having children be immoral?’, in H. Kuhse and P. Singer (Eds) Bioethics: An Anthology (2nd edition), Malden, MA, Oxford, Victoria: Blackwell, pp. 113-121Rapp, R., Heath, D. and Taussig, K-S. (2001) ‘Genealogical dis-ease: where hereditary abnormality, biomedical explanation, and family responsibility meet’, in S. Franklin and S. McKinnon (Eds) Relative Values: Reconfiguring Kinship Studies, Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 384-409Rapp, R. (2003) ‘Cell life and death, child life and death: genomic horizons, genetics diseases, family stories’, in S. Franklin and M. Lock (Eds) Remaking Life and Death: Toward an Anthropology of the Life Sciences, Oxford: James CurreyRoberts, Dorothy (2009) ‘Race, Gender and Genetic Technologies: A New Reproductive Dystopia?’, Signs, Vol, 34, No. 4, pp. 783-804Rock, P.J. (1996) ‘Eugenics and Euthanasia: A cause for concern for disabled people, particularly disabled women’, Disability & Society, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 121-127Rothblatt, M. (1997) Unzipped Genes: Taking Charge of Baby-Making in the New Millennium, Philadelphia: Temple University PressShakespeare, T. (1999) ‘“Losing the plot”? Medical and activist discourses of contemporary genetics and disability’, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 669-688Silver, L. M. (1998) Remaking Eden: Cloning, Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humankind, London: PhoenixSteinberg, D. L. (1997) ‘A most selective practice: the eugenic logics of IVF’, Women's Studies International Forum, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 33-48Svendsen, M.N. and Koch, L. (2008) ‘Unpacking the “spare embryo”: facilitating stem cell research in a moral landscape’, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 92-110Tutton, R. (2002) ‘The gift relationship in genetics research’, Science as Culture, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 523-542Turney, J. (1998) Frankenstein’s Footsteps: Science, Genetics and Popular Culture, New Haven: Yale University PressWarnock, Mary and Peter Braude (2012) ‘Research Using Preimplantation Human Embryos’, in Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer (Eds) A Companion to Bioethics, Oxford: Wiley-BlackwellWilliams, C., Kitzinger, J., & Henderson, L. (2003) ‘Envisaging the embryo in stem cell research: rhetorical strategies and media reporting of the ethical debates’, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 25, No. 7, pp. 793-814WebsitesCampaign to End Sex Selection: for Responsible Genetics: : web-pages on Embryo Research in the UK: HFEA web-pages on Genetic Testing, including Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Preimplantation tissue typing: Genetics Alert: Wellcome Trust: The Ethics of Stem Cells: 20Surrogacy: Just any other contract or the dehumanisation of women’s reproductive labour?Caroline WrightA cultural imperative towards having genetically related children has encouraged the growth of assisted conception techniques. Closely related to this has been the growth of surrogacy. Although in the UK commercial surrogate contracts are unenforceable, and there are strict limits to the ‘expenses’ that can be paid, surrogacy continues to take place. In addition, some British prospective parents travel to other countries, where commercial surrogacy is legal or less regulated. Some of you may recall the widely publicised case of the two gay men who fathered twins through a surrogacy contract with a woman from the US. Interestingly it was the question of their specific ‘fitness’ to parent that occupied much of the media's attention, rather than the context of surrogacy contracts themselves. This week, we will consider how social inequalities structure the context of surrogacy, and the ethical and political considerations of ‘renting a womb’. Surrogacy will be examined as part of the commodification of childbearing, and the wider implications this has for women will be discussed. SeminarIs surrogacy just another contract? What structures the contract?QuestionsAre surrogate mothers victims, monsters or rational agents?How does surrogacy challenge idealizations of biological motherhood?Does the trend for ‘surrogacy tourism’ matter?Core Reading and ViewingAffordable Surrogates: (browse generally)COTS UK (surrogacy support group): (browse generally)Phillips, A. (2013) Our Bodies, Whose Property?, Princeton: Princeton University Press, (Ch. 3 ‘Bodies for Rent: The Case of Commercial Surrogacy’)Available as an E-book: Ragone, H. (2000) ‘Of likeness and difference: how race is being transfigured by gestational surrogacy’, in H. Ragone and F.W. Twine (Eds) Ideologies and Technologies of Motherhood: Race, Class, Sexuality, Nationalism, London: Routledge, pp. 56-75Available as an E-extract: Zyl, L. and A. van Niekerk (2000) ‘Interpretations, perspectives and intentions in surrogate motherhood’, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 404-409Available as an E-journal article: ReadingAtwood, M. (1986) The Handmaid’s Tale, London: CapeBaslington, H. (1996) ‘Anxiety overflow: implications of the IVF surrogacy case and the ethical and moral limits of reproductive technologies in Britain’, Women's Studies International Forum, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 675-684Berend, Zsuzsa (2012) ‘Surrogacy Losses: Failed Conception and Pregnancy Loss Among American Surrogate Mothers’, in Sarah Earle, Carol Komarory and Linda Layne (Eds) Understanding Reproductive Loss: Perspectives on Life, Death and Fertility, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 93-104Burfoot, A. (1995) ‘In-Appropriation: A Critique of Proceed with Care, Final Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies’, Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 499-506Cook, Rachel and Shelley Day Sclater with Felicity Kaganas (Eds) (2003) Surrogate Motherhood: International Perspectives, Oxford, Portland Oregan: Hart PublishingCorea, G. (1988) The Mother Machine, London: The Women's Press (Chapter on Surrogate Motherhood)Davis, A. Y. (1993) ‘Outcast mothers and surrogates: racism and reproductive politics in the nineties’, in L.S. Kauffman (Ed.) American Feminist Thought at the Century’s end: A Reader, Cambridge, Mass: BlackwellFarquhar, D. (1996) The Other Machine, New York: Routledge (Ch. 6 ‘Surrogate Mothers: Victims or Monsters’)Greenfield, J. and S. Jennings (1995) ‘From surrogacy to contested adoption: what went wrong?’, Adoption and Fostering, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 34-40Hartouni, V. (1997) Cultural Conceptions, Minneapolis & London: University of Minnesota Press (Ch. 4 ‘Reproducing Public Meanings: in the Matter of Baby M’ and Ch. 5 ‘Breached Birth: Anna Johnson and the Reproduction of Raced Bodies’) Jackson, Emily (2001) Regulating Reproduction: Law, Technology and Autonomy, Oxford, Portland Oregan: Hart Publishing (Ch. 6 ‘Surrogacy’)Lee, R. G. (2001) Human Fertilisation and Embryology: Regulating the Reproduction Revolution, London: Blackstone (Ch. 8)Markens, S. (2007) Surrogate Motherhood and the Politics of Reproduction, Berkeley: University of California PressMorgan, D. (1994) ‘A surrogacy issue: who is the other mother?’, International Journal of Law and the Family, Vol. 8, No. 3 pp. 386-412Philips, A. (2011) ‘It’s my body and I’ll do what I like with it: Bodies as Objects and Property’, Political Theory, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 724-748Purdey, L.M. (2006) ‘Surrogate Mothers: Exploitation or Empowerment’, in H. Kuhse and P. Singer (Eds) Bioethics: An Anthology (2nd edition), Malden, MA, Oxford, Victoria: Blackwell, pp. 90-99Ragone, H. (1994) Surrogate Motherhood: Conception in the Heart, Boulder: Westview PressRagone, H. (1999) ‘The gift of life: surrogate motherhood, gamete donation and constructions of altruism’, in L. Layne (Ed.) Transformative Motherhood: On Giving and Getting in Consumer Culture New York: New York University PressRoberts, Dorothy (1999) Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction and the Meaning of Liberty, New York: Vintage Books (Ch. 6)Rowland, R. (1992) Living Laboratories: Women and Reproductive Technology, London: Lime Tree (Ch. 4 ‘The De-personalisation of birth-mothers in so-called surrogacy’)Stanworth, M. (1990) ‘Birth Pangs: Conceptive Technologies and the Threat to Motherhood’ in M. Hirsch and E. Fox Keller (Eds) Conflicts in Feminism, New York & London: RoutledgeZipper, J. and S. Sevenhuijsen (1987) ‘Surrogacy: Feminist Notions of Motherhood Reconsidered’ in M. Stanworth (Ed.) Reproductive Technologies, Cambridge: Polity PressVan Niekerk, A. and L. Van Zyl (1995) ‘The Ethics of Surrogacy: Women’s Reproductive Labour’, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 345-349WebsitesAffordable Surrogates: Surrogacy: Women’s Lobby Campaign Against Surrogacy: : of Parents through Surrogacy (OPTS): Centre India: Law: UK: Parents (India): ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download