| |||
Dear Ms. Neubauer:
I'm
sending you what I consider two very important articles: "Artificial
wombs could liberate
elite women at the expense of the reproductive classes" and "Demanding
the Right to
Reproduce: Voluntary and Forced Sterilization in America." I'm
requesting the National Alliance consider reprinting them on its
website. Or, if the National Alliance is concerned about copyright
infringement it could merely provide a synopsis of the articles and
provide the links. The National Alliance has permission to publish my
comments. I've emailed the English psychologist Richard Lynn who is the
primary contact for the Pioneer Fund. I've mentioned the correspondence
I've had with you. I've included links on Richard Lynn and the Pioneer
Fund. In my opinion, the White power movement is too splintered. To
possibly achieve its aims and goals it will have to become much more
united. Hopefully, my ideas can be shared and spread. You may be
offended by my comments, "However, I think your comments regarding the
National Alliance which is an American neo-Nazi organization I sent my
article "Voluntary Sterilization of the Poor" to is correct. I agree
with you the National Alliance is laser focused on the elimination of
anybody who isn't white and they are focused on sucking in anyone who
they perceive to be possibly convertible to their way of thinking. I
agree with you they have no interest in honest and constructive
intellectual conversation or debate. I think you are right they will
study my thinking and attempt to turn it to their advantage. So you are
right I'm blowing in the wind in trying to bend their principles. It is
highly likely if they do publish my article they will edit it. For
example, I clearly acknowledge the Holocaust happened. The National
Alliance denies the Holocaust happened. If they do publish my article
they will likely delete the part where I acknowledge the Holocaust.
However, sadly it is possible in the future neo-Nazi organizations will
no longer deny the Holocaust. Over time the Holocaust may lose its
stigma. Since the Holocaust there have been several genocides. The
phrase "never again", well meaning as it is, is hollow." However, I may
be wrong in my assessment. As I stated to you I was very surprised and
pleased you contacted me and considered my article "Voluntary
Sterilization of the Poor" for possible publication. If the National
Alliance does publish it unedited I don't know how they will reconcile
my acknowledgement of the Holocaust with their stated position of
denying the Holocaust. It's possible the National Alliance will find
enough value in my article that my acknowledgment of the Holocaust is
not considered a big deal.
Sincerely,
Michael Ragland
Richard Lynn links:
Pioneer Fund links
Dear Dr. Lynn:
I'm
sending you two articles to read: "Artificial wombs could liberate
elite women at the expense of the reproductive classes" and "Demanding
the Right to
Reproduce: Voluntary and Forced Sterilization in America
" as well as my commentary.
Michael Ragland
Note: Vanessa Neubauer is the correspondence secretary for the National Alliance, an American neo-Nazi organization.
Tom Geib is a facebook friend of mine.
Tom. I know you will find my email to
Ms. Neubauer very offensive. I know you fight to reduce racism, sexism
and class disparities. On Facebook, you wrote, "This is a good day. It
is also a day realize there is a huge number of
black and brown people who need recognition, respect and support. It
really isn’t so much to expect." However, I see myself as a "negative
visionary". Until humans use genetic engineering to change their
fundamental nature (and this won't happen for many thousands of years) I
think racism, sexism and class disparities, albeit in new forms, will
continue to persist.
Michael
Dear Ms. Neubauer;
The
article "Artificial wombs could liberate elite women at the expense of
the reproductive classes" by Glosswitch is very interesting. As she
points out, "The regulation of female reproductive bodies
has been used to maintain not just gender, but class and racial
hierarchies. It needs to end." However, I don't think it will end. In
the future in the U.S. the elite women who will use artificial wombs
will be privileged
white women. The reproductive classes will be mainly poor women of
color-African Americans and Latinas. Gender, class and racial
hierarchies will be perpetuated and enhanced under a regime of
artificial wombs used by privileged white women. In the past history of
the U.S. coerced/involuntary sterilization of low income women of color
has been a means to regulate colored female reproductive bodies. The
"collective good" is seen through the lens of racism, sexism and class
disparities and the "collective good" is the elimination of anybody who
isn't white. I advocate the preservation of the white race in the U.S.
and its continued majority status. The only way I think this can be
achieved is by the perpetuation and enhancement of racism, sexism and
class disparities by elite privileged white women using artificial
wombs and the regulation of colored female bodies through government
financial incentives to voluntarily sterilize them.
Michael Ragland
"Even if womb transplants and artificial wombs become everyday
possibilities, the bodies of those already born with wombs will remain
cheaper (providing we continue to place a low value on such people’s
lives). It’s entirely plausible to see a world in which reproductive
technologies increase the options of the privileged – gestate if you
want, rent a surrogate or an artificial womb if you want – while doing
nothing to raise the status of the most marginalised.
IVF, the pill, sterilisation, womb transplants and artificial wombs are
not inherently anti-female; the problem is that economic and political
power lies mostly with men, and with only a small proportion of highly
privileged women. Of course the privileged will ask “what’s in it for
me?” Of course their priority will be to use these things to their
advantage. The priority for feminists needs to be to hang on to these
possibilities while continuing to challenge the idea that those who
(potentially) gestate are in all other ways inferior beings."
"But we still need to talk about the relationship between our social status and our potential reproductive role, not least because it’s of fundamental importance to a truly intersectional feminism. The regulation of female reproductive bodies has been used to maintain not just gender, but class and racial hierarchies. It needs to end.
Four decades after the first IVF baby was conceived, we’re still
nowhere near having reproductive justice for all, and nowhere near
achieving equal pay for equal work. We can’t wait for science to save
us. We already have the means, but now need the will."
Note: This is a very interesting article.
Michael Ragland
"But we still need to talk about the relationship between our social status and our potential reproductive role, not least because it’s of fundamental importance to a truly intersectional feminism. The regulation of female reproductive bodies has been used to maintain not just gender, but class and racial hierarchies. It needs to end.
Note: This is a very interesting article.
Michael Ragland
Artificial wombs could liberate elite women at the expense of the reproductive classes
Some feminists have dreamed of mechanising human production.
This month saw the 40th anniversary of the conception of Louise Brown, the world’s first IVF baby. It was also Equal Pay Day,
the day on which, due to the current gender pay gap, UK women
effectively stop earning in relation to men for the rest of the year.
If there is a relationship between these two facts, it’s a complex one. Women’s role in human reproduction has frequently been held responsible for their lower pay and status. Either it’s supposed to make us less effective workers, or it determines that our lives be spent doing work that, for some reason, does not even merit pay. Even if we do not have children, the taint of belonging to the breeder class limits our options. To some this is plain old biology, and who’s going to argue with that? (Science, that’s who.)
The reproductive technology boom that started in 1977 is now at a highly advanced stage, with successful womb transplants and even talk of artificial wombs for human babies. The technology already exists to enable women to delay conception, freeze eggs and even outsource pregnancy to others.
If reproductive biology has been the thing which held women back, then we’re reaching a stage where that can be overcome.
In theory, that is. In practice, I’d suggest we be more circumspect.
There’s always been a problem with exploring the link between female
oppression and reproductive bodies. In essence it suggests that our
bodies are not simply ourselves, but some kind of obstacle that must be
overcome in order for women to gain full human status. In 1970’s The Dialectic of Sex,
Shulamith Firestone goes full-throttle for this line, advocating the
use of cybernetics to carry out human reproduction in laboratories, thus
liberating women from the “barbaric” experience of gestation and birth.
Not all feminists have agreed with this. As Adrienne Rich argued in 1976 Of Woman Born, the female body can become “so problematic for women” that it may seem easier “ to shrug it off and travel as a disembodied spirit” (which none of us can actually do). By 1992, Ann Snitow was describing Firestone’s “picture of the female body as a prison from which a benign, nonpatriarchal science might release us” as dated. After all, what true liberation depends on the idea that without technological help, the liberated subject is fundamentally flawed?
Nevertheless, Firestone’s vision persists, if not in a desire to render the body obsolete, then to circumvent it linguistically. No one wants to be considered a walking womb. As Elisa Albert’s narrator puts it in her 2015 novel After Birth, “heaven forbid it might be true that female bodies are different […] Because, what? We might lose the vote? Because we might get veiled, imprisoned? Best deny it, deny it, make it to the Oval Office, win, win, win”. After all, you can always take the pill, freeze your eggs, rent the body of a surrogate in some far-flung country, and no one need notice you’re any different from a man, providing, of course, you’re already very wealthy.
To this extent the stymied liberatory potential of reproductive technology is no different to the stymied liberatory potential of any other form of technology. Products and processes are made by the rich, for the rich, liberating those who are, in relative terms, already free. It’s not just that poorer women and women of colour have reduced access to abortion and contraception, or that some members of these groups have endured forced sterilisation, that is, reproductive technology actively used as a means of oppression. Egg donation, IVF, womb transplants and global surrogacy all now mean that wealthy white women can, should they so wish, outsource the very roots of sex-based oppression to their less privileged sisters.
Of course even this only works to a certain degree. Patriarchy remains
invested in maintaining a stranglehold on the means of reproduction.
Consider this - if you accept that being biologically female is compatible with having an inner life, you have to apply this universally. Under such conditions no reproductive injustice – denial of abortion or contraception, forced sterilisation, economic coercion regarding having/not having children, disregard of maternal mortality – is justifiable. Forced pregnancy or sterilisation is always barbaric. Therefore, if you are to justify such barbarism where convenient, you must also promote the relative dehumanisation of everyone born with a womb (or a vagina, with the associated assumption that one might just have a womb).
Even if womb transplants and artificial wombs become everyday possibilities, the bodies of those already born with wombs will remain cheaper (providing we continue to place a low value on such people’s lives). It’s entirely plausible to see a world in which reproductive technologies increase the options of the privileged – gestate if you want, rent a surrogate or an artificial womb if you want – while doing nothing to raise the status of the most marginalised.
IVF, the pill, sterilisation, womb transplants and artificial wombs are not inherently anti-female; the problem is that economic and political power lies mostly with men, and with only a small proportion of highly privileged women. Of course the privileged will ask “what’s in it for me?” Of course their priority will be to use these things to their advantage. The priority for feminists needs to be to hang on to these possibilities while continuing to challenge the idea that those who (potentially) gestate are in all other ways inferior beings.
It’s easy to present feminists who want to talk about reproduction as luddites. They “reduce women to their biology, just like men's rights activists”. Quite obviously we are more than our wombs. There’s a whole thinking, feeling, acting, unique person who just so happens to have been born with a uterus. But we still need to talk about the relationship between our social status and our potential reproductive role, not least because it’s of fundamental importance to a truly intersectional feminism. The regulation of female reproductive bodies has been used to maintain not just gender, but class and racial hierarchies. It needs to end.
Four decades after the first IVF baby was conceived, we’re still
nowhere near having reproductive justice for all, and nowhere near
achieving equal pay for equal work. We can’t wait for science to save
us. We already have the means, but now need the will.
If there is a relationship between these two facts, it’s a complex one. Women’s role in human reproduction has frequently been held responsible for their lower pay and status. Either it’s supposed to make us less effective workers, or it determines that our lives be spent doing work that, for some reason, does not even merit pay. Even if we do not have children, the taint of belonging to the breeder class limits our options. To some this is plain old biology, and who’s going to argue with that? (Science, that’s who.)
If reproductive biology has been the thing which held women back, then we’re reaching a stage where that can be overcome.
In theory, that is. In practice, I’d suggest we be more circumspect.
Not all feminists have agreed with this. As Adrienne Rich argued in 1976 Of Woman Born, the female body can become “so problematic for women” that it may seem easier “ to shrug it off and travel as a disembodied spirit” (which none of us can actually do). By 1992, Ann Snitow was describing Firestone’s “picture of the female body as a prison from which a benign, nonpatriarchal science might release us” as dated. After all, what true liberation depends on the idea that without technological help, the liberated subject is fundamentally flawed?
Nevertheless, Firestone’s vision persists, if not in a desire to render the body obsolete, then to circumvent it linguistically. No one wants to be considered a walking womb. As Elisa Albert’s narrator puts it in her 2015 novel After Birth, “heaven forbid it might be true that female bodies are different […] Because, what? We might lose the vote? Because we might get veiled, imprisoned? Best deny it, deny it, make it to the Oval Office, win, win, win”. After all, you can always take the pill, freeze your eggs, rent the body of a surrogate in some far-flung country, and no one need notice you’re any different from a man, providing, of course, you’re already very wealthy.
To this extent the stymied liberatory potential of reproductive technology is no different to the stymied liberatory potential of any other form of technology. Products and processes are made by the rich, for the rich, liberating those who are, in relative terms, already free. It’s not just that poorer women and women of colour have reduced access to abortion and contraception, or that some members of these groups have endured forced sterilisation, that is, reproductive technology actively used as a means of oppression. Egg donation, IVF, womb transplants and global surrogacy all now mean that wealthy white women can, should they so wish, outsource the very roots of sex-based oppression to their less privileged sisters.
Consider this - if you accept that being biologically female is compatible with having an inner life, you have to apply this universally. Under such conditions no reproductive injustice – denial of abortion or contraception, forced sterilisation, economic coercion regarding having/not having children, disregard of maternal mortality – is justifiable. Forced pregnancy or sterilisation is always barbaric. Therefore, if you are to justify such barbarism where convenient, you must also promote the relative dehumanisation of everyone born with a womb (or a vagina, with the associated assumption that one might just have a womb).
Even if womb transplants and artificial wombs become everyday possibilities, the bodies of those already born with wombs will remain cheaper (providing we continue to place a low value on such people’s lives). It’s entirely plausible to see a world in which reproductive technologies increase the options of the privileged – gestate if you want, rent a surrogate or an artificial womb if you want – while doing nothing to raise the status of the most marginalised.
IVF, the pill, sterilisation, womb transplants and artificial wombs are not inherently anti-female; the problem is that economic and political power lies mostly with men, and with only a small proportion of highly privileged women. Of course the privileged will ask “what’s in it for me?” Of course their priority will be to use these things to their advantage. The priority for feminists needs to be to hang on to these possibilities while continuing to challenge the idea that those who (potentially) gestate are in all other ways inferior beings.
It’s easy to present feminists who want to talk about reproduction as luddites. They “reduce women to their biology, just like men's rights activists”. Quite obviously we are more than our wombs. There’s a whole thinking, feeling, acting, unique person who just so happens to have been born with a uterus. But we still need to talk about the relationship between our social status and our potential reproductive role, not least because it’s of fundamental importance to a truly intersectional feminism. The regulation of female reproductive bodies has been used to maintain not just gender, but class and racial hierarchies. It needs to end.
https://www.newstatesman.com/
| |||
Tom Geib is a facebook friend of mine.
Tom,
the article I sent you by Rewire.news "Demanding the Right to
Reproduce: Voluntary and Forced Sterilization in America by Mandy Van
Deven was not written by Engender Health. It was was a review of Rebecca
Kluchin's book "Fit to Be Tied: Sterilization and Reproductive Rights
in America, 1950-1980 which explores a thirty year period of U.S.
history in which eugenic and neo-eugenic ideas were used to justify
forced, coerced, and freely chosen sterilization. I provided a link to
Engender Health. They primarily provide family planning services to
developing countries. However, I think your comments regarding the
National Alliance which is an American neo-Nazi organization I sent my
article "Voluntary Sterilization of the Poor" to is correct. I agree
with you the National Alliance is laser focused on the elimination of
anybody who isn't white and they are focused on sucking in anyone who
they perceive to be possibly convertible to their way of thinking. I
agree with you they have no interest in honest and constructive
intellectual conversation or debate. I think you are right they will
study my thinking and attempt to turn it to their advantage. So you are
right I'm blowing in the wind in trying to bend their principles. It is
highly likely if they do publish my article they will edit it. For
example, I clearly acknowledge the Holocaust happened. The National
Alliance denies the Holocaust happened. If they do publish my article
they will likely delete the part where I acknowledge the Holocaust.
However, sadly it is possible in the future neo-Nazi organizations will
no longer deny the Holocaust. Over time the Holocaust may lose its
stigma. Since the Holocaust there have been several genocides. The
phrase "never again", well meaning as it is, is hollow. The National
Alliance is laser focused on eliminating anybody who isn't white and my
proposal to have the U.S. government provide financial incentives to
Latino and African American ghetto inhabitants to be voluntarily
sterilized or receive long term implant contraception would, assuming
many Latino and African American ghetto inhabitants agreed to be
voluntarily sterilized or receive long term implant contraception,
result in at least a partial elimination of Latino and African American
ghetto inhabitants. I think it is this major part of my proposal which
the National Alliance finds appealing. Perhaps there is a way to
eliminate non-Whites which doesn't involve violent genocide. As Kluchin
mentioned there is a continuous struggle regarding sterilization between
individual rights and the "collective good". And Kluchin doesn't think
this struggle can be reconciled
in a pluralistic society like ours where we theoretically all have
equal rights, but in practice racism, sexism, and class disparities
continue to shape our ability to exercise
such rights. The "collective good" is seen through the lens of racism, sexism, and class disparities. In essence, the "collective good" is the elimination of anybody who isn't white. As Kluchin mentions too often those in power use the interest of the "collective good" to justify the violation of individual rights of those who lack power. Theoretically, my proposal to have the U.S. government offer financial incentives to Latino and African American ghetto inhabitants to be voluntarily sterilized or receive long term implant contraception would not be a violation of individual rights of those who lack power. Of course, some would argue offering financial incentives is nothing but bribery and coercive and thus constitutes a violation of individual rights of those who lack power. However, if there was clear informed consent and the sterilization or long term implant contraception was "voluntary" and those physicians and administrators who violated informed consent and involuntarily sterilized or implanted long term contraception in low income women of color were vigorously criminally prosecuted, I don't think such "voluntary" sterilization would be a violation of individual rights of those who lack power. However, some would argue offering financial incentives/bribes to Latino and African American ghetto inhabitants to be "voluntarily" sterilized would make such sterilizations or long term implant contraception not truly "voluntary" and would constitute a violation of individual rights of those who lack power. What is the solution Tom? It seems racism, sexism, and class disparities are endemic. How does society go about eliminating racism, sexism, and class disparities? If racism, sexism, and class disparities are a natural condition of man just how much will social interventions be successful in reducing or eliminating racism, sexism, and class disparities?
such rights. The "collective good" is seen through the lens of racism, sexism, and class disparities. In essence, the "collective good" is the elimination of anybody who isn't white. As Kluchin mentions too often those in power use the interest of the "collective good" to justify the violation of individual rights of those who lack power. Theoretically, my proposal to have the U.S. government offer financial incentives to Latino and African American ghetto inhabitants to be voluntarily sterilized or receive long term implant contraception would not be a violation of individual rights of those who lack power. Of course, some would argue offering financial incentives is nothing but bribery and coercive and thus constitutes a violation of individual rights of those who lack power. However, if there was clear informed consent and the sterilization or long term implant contraception was "voluntary" and those physicians and administrators who violated informed consent and involuntarily sterilized or implanted long term contraception in low income women of color were vigorously criminally prosecuted, I don't think such "voluntary" sterilization would be a violation of individual rights of those who lack power. However, some would argue offering financial incentives/bribes to Latino and African American ghetto inhabitants to be "voluntarily" sterilized would make such sterilizations or long term implant contraception not truly "voluntary" and would constitute a violation of individual rights of those who lack power. What is the solution Tom? It seems racism, sexism, and class disparities are endemic. How does society go about eliminating racism, sexism, and class disparities? If racism, sexism, and class disparities are a natural condition of man just how much will social interventions be successful in reducing or eliminating racism, sexism, and class disparities?
MVD: A continuous struggle regarding sterilization
is one between individual freedoms and the "collective good,"
both sides which have merit and serious
problems. Do you see these positions as
reconcilable?
RK: I think it depends on who gets to define
what the "collective good" is and whether or not those whose interests
conflict with the "collective good" have the ability to resist attempts
to control their reproduction. Too often those in power use the interest
of the "collective good" to justify the violation of individual
rights of those who lack power. I think in a pluralistic society like
ours where we theoretically all have equal rights, but in practice racism,
sexism, and class disparities continue to shape our ability to exercise
such rights, these positions cannot be reconciled.
NOTE: This is a fascinating and interesting interview with Rebecca Kluchin by Mandy Van Deven. I encourage group members to read it.
Michael Ragland
is one between individual freedoms and the "collective good,"
both sides which have merit and serious
problems. Do you see these positions as
reconcilable?
RK: I think it depends on who gets to define
what the "collective good" is and whether or not those whose interests
conflict with the "collective good" have the ability to resist attempts
to control their reproduction. Too often those in power use the interest
of the "collective good" to justify the violation of individual
rights of those who lack power. I think in a pluralistic society like
ours where we theoretically all have equal rights, but in practice racism,
sexism, and class disparities continue to shape our ability to exercise
such rights, these positions cannot be reconciled.
NOTE: This is a fascinating and interesting interview with Rebecca Kluchin by Mandy Van Deven. I encourage group members to read it.
Michael Ragland
Demanding the Right to Reproduce: Voluntary and Forced Sterilization in America
Aug 5, 2009, 7:00am Mandy Van DevenRebecca Kluchin's new book, Fit to Be Tied: Sterilization and Reproductive Rights in America, 1950-1980, explores a thirty year period of US history in which eugenic and neo-eugenic ideas were used to justify forced, coerced, and freely chosen sterilization.
The latest attempt to sink health care reform bills under consideration in Congress comes as no surprise. Anti-abortion advocates are pressuring
the administration to exclude one of America’s most controversial
surgical procedures from the federal plan. At the same time as this
story broke, another White House related reproductive rights issue was
also hitting the news: Obama’s appointed Science Czar, John Holdren,
wrote a book in support of forced sterilization as a means of population
control. Which story
do you think has received more press? Abortion, of course.
Both issues are critically important
to discuss. Rebecca Kluchin’s new book, Fit to Be Tied: Sterilization
and Reproductive Rights in America, 1950-1980, explores a thirty
year period of US history in which eugenic and neo-eugenic ideas were
used to justify forced, coerced, and freely chosen sterilization, providing much-needed historical context for a topic that is still alive. In
it, Kluchin shines a light on why it’s high time to make room at the
reproductive rights table for more than one conversation.
Mandy Van Deven: Sterilization isn’t the most popular
reproductive health topic. How did you come to write this book?
RK: As a graduate student studying American
women’s history, I studied the history of abortion and birth control.
I shifted my research focus from abortion to sterilization because so
little had been written about the latter in the post-World War II period,
and I was interested in understanding the ways social engineering continued
to shape sterilization policy and practice even after the formal eugenics
movement concluded. I was also very interested in the gendered power
dynamics between patients and healthcare providers, and the ways in
which race, ethnicity, and class shaped women’s access to reproductive
health services.
MVD: Why
did these three decades stand out as important for sterilization and
reproductive rights?
RK: The 1960s and 1970s represented an era
of social and political change, and to some extent, the law changed
with the times. The Supreme Court legalized contraception for married
couples in 1965, and for singles and minors in 1972. The following year,
it legalized abortion in the first two trimesters with Roe v. Wade.
The new freedoms women gained through these decisions led some women
who were denied voluntary sterilization to challenge restrictions on
their desired surgeries. If birth control and abortion were legal, they
wondered, why was tubal ligation still restricted? Voluntary sterilization
policy, specifically the overturning of hospital codes that restricted
women’s access to tubal ligation, followed the precedents set by Supreme
Court decisions that legalized birth control and abortion.
MVD: What kinds of hospital policies did
women find problematic?
RK: Most hospitals restrict women’s access
to tubal ligation through age/parity policies. The most common policy
is called the 120 rule, and said a woman’s age multiplied with the
number of children she had (her parity) had to equal or exceed 120 in
order for her to eligible for sterilization. Birth rates were declining
and many women – especially white women, as hospital administrators
did not always employ such policies in minority communities – could
not meet the criteria. Using recent precedents in birth control and
abortion policy, voluntary sterilization plaintiffs successfully argued
that the hospitals that refused their requests for tubal ligation had
violated their newly established reproductive rights.
MVD: What influenced your decision to use
legal sources as your primary research material?
RK: My reliance on lawsuits to tell the stories
of the forcibly sterilized and those seeking sterilization was dictated
largely by the sources available to me. I lacked access to most medical
records, but I did have access to court cases and, in some instances,
trial transcripts and affidavits, which provided me with direct access
to my subjects. Whenever possible, I supplemented these sources with
popular literature and letters written by women and men seeking sterilization
that I found in the archives.
Historians can never be totally objective,
but when researching and writing this book, I tried to listen to the
women whose voices I located and represent them in the most authentic
terms possible. I am keenly aware that most women do not describe their
reproductive experiences in political terms, which meant that I could
not rely on institutional records (e.g. NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood,
the Association for Voluntary Sterilization) to represent those sterilized
or seeking to be sterilized. I studied the records of these organizations,
but they did not offer the direct access to the subjects of my study
like legal records did.
MVD: How did the battle for the right of
sterilization differ from the battle against forced sterilization?
RK: Victims of sterilization abuse proved
less successful in their efforts to sue the hospitals and physicians
that were responsible for their loss of fertility. This is largely because
the precedents set in birth control, abortion, and voluntary sterilization
cases defined reproductive rights as access to reproductive health services.
Victims of forced sterilization attempted to broaden this framework
by arguing that they possessed the right to be free from coercion and
should be compensated for the abuse they suffered. Only one of the thirty-three
lawsuits I found was decided in favor of sterilization abuse victims.
As a result, current policy defines reproductive freedom narrowly, as
access to reproductive health services, which ignores the ways in which
poverty and race continue to shape women’s reproductive experiences
and options.
MVD: To some degree this book re-centers women of color in an historical viewing of reproductive rights struggles. How did
sterilization practices and policies effect
women of color’s participation in the movement for
reproductive rights?
RK: Fit to Be Tied builds on the work
of scholars like Jennifer Nelson, Elena Gutierrez, Loretta Ross, and
Angela Davis, among others, who not only pointed out the white middle
class biases of feminist organizing around reproductive rights issues,
but revealed a rich organizing tradition of women of color around reproductive
rights. The reproductive choices that women confront are shaped by race,
class, and ethnicity; thus, for many women of color, reproductive freedom
was part of their struggle for racial equality and economic justice.
In 1961, civil rights activist Fannie
Lou Hamer was sterilized via hysterectomy when she entered Sunflower
County Hospital in Alabama to have a uterine tumor removed. The operating
physician performed a "Mississippi appendectomy." He removed her
uterus without her knowledge during abdominal surgery. White physicians
practiced "Mississippi appendectomies" in Southern black communities
in the 1950s and early 1960s, particularly communities with active civil
rights traditions. For black women in the South, sterilization abuse
was a civil rights issue.
While white feminists organized around
abortion, many Chicana and Native American activists organized around
the issue of ending sterilization abuse. Chicanas in western states
and Native American women on reservations experienced forced sterilization
in the late 1960s and early 1970s that involved white physicians targeting
them for "elective" tubal ligation when they entered hospitals in
labor. As with black women, Chicanas and Native American women were
targeted because of their race and class status.
MVD: You write about the fissures between
white women and WOC who were advocating two very different, and at times
conflicting, positions on reproductive rights. Can
you talk about why there was divergence in the movement?
RK: Women are not a unified group. Because
race, ethnicity, and class play such a critical role in determining
the reproductive choices available, women define reproductive rights
differently. Most women of color did not join mainstream white feminist
organizations because groups like NOW, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood
constructed a reproductive rights agenda based upon a white, middle-class experience that focused nearly exclusively on abortion rights
and did not address the other reproductive offenses through the medical
racism women of color, especially poor women of color, experienced – sterilization
abuse being just one form. Women of color advocated a broader definition
of reproductive freedom that went beyond unrestricted access to legal
abortion and included the right to determine when and under what conditions
to become pregnant and the right of all women to bear and raise children
with dignity.
Feminists of color leveled many criticisms
against white feminists during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Radical
white feminists listened to charges that they ignored issues of race
and class, and adopted the expanded definition of reproductive freedom
held by feminists of color. Together these groups formed an anti-sterilization
abuse movement that made sterilization abuse a national issue. Their
efforts led the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW) to
develop sterilization guidelines for public patients designed to prevent
coercion. White "mainstream" feminists and anti-sterilization abuse
activists found themselves on opposite sides of the debate that ensued
over how to prevent abuse via public policy.
MVD: What is interesting is that both camps
literally had opposing positions.
RK: All feminists opposed forced sterilization,
but Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW rejected the waiting periods
(thirty days between time of consent and surgery) and age minimums (21-years-old)
that DHEW proposed on the grounds that they impeded women’s access
to sterilization. Anti-
in favor of these safeguards, and insisted that forced sterilization
constituted a far greater violation of rights than did lack of immediate
access to services. Herein lay the conflict: in order to protect one
group of women from forced sterilization, DHEW had to restrict another
group of women’s access to tubal ligation. In this instance, women’s
reproductive rights were in irreconcilable conflict.
MVD: You’re
keen to point out in the book that many of the women who
filed suit against unfair sterilization practices were not, in fact,
feminists. Why was it important to make this distinction?
RK: Scholars and journalists tend to define
reproductive rights as a feminist issue, but women who did not identify
as feminist challenged public policy too. Before Roe v. Wade, hundreds
of thousands of women underwent illegal abortions every year. Their
defiance of the law, at great risk to their lives and health, should
be read as a challenge to public policy, even though it was covert.
The voluntary and forced sterilization lawsuits I examine reveal the
extent to which feminist ideas about reproductive freedom made their
way into mainstream culture in the 1970s. They show how quickly many
American women adopted feminist ideas about the right to control their
reproductive decisions without medical or legal interference even as
many of these women went out of their way to separate themselves from
organized feminism. Reproductive rights activism can assume many forms
and one does not have to define oneself as a feminist to take action.
MVD: A continuous struggle regarding sterilization
is one between individual freedoms and the "collective good,"
both sides which have merit and serious
problems. Do you see these positions as
reconcilable?
RK: I think it depends on who gets to define
what the "collective good" is and whether or not those whose interests
conflict with the "collective good" have the ability to resist attempts
to control their reproduction. Too often those in power use the interest
of the "collective good" to justify the violation of individual
rights of those who lack power. I think in a pluralistic society like
ours where we theoretically all have equal rights, but in practice racism,
sexism, and class disparities continue to shape our ability to exercise
such rights, these positions cannot be reconciled.
MVD: Fit to be Tied
is primarily interested in the sterilization of women, but you do
write about men’s sterilization as well.
In what ways were men impacted by sterilization?
RK: Not surprisingly, physicians and hospitals
did not place the same restrictions on vasectomy as they did tubal ligation.
The 120 rule governed women’s access to contraceptive sterilization,
but not such policy existed for men. This is partially because, until
the early 1970s when laparoscopic methods were introduced, tubal ligations
were performed in hospitals whereas vasectomies were performed in urologists’
offices and therefore not subject to oversight. But sexism also played
a role. When a New Jersey woman denied tubal ligation by Riverview Hospital
in 1971 asked an administrator why vasectomy was not regulated like
tubal ligation, he replied, "It’s nobody’s business what a man
does."
MVD: The
Association for Voluntary Sterilization (AVS) is prominent in this book,
and seems to be the only organization that was
able to change with the times in order to put forth its
agenda. Why do you think they were able to maintain
this level of success in pushing their agenda?
RK: I think the AVS (which is now called
EngenderHealth) endured for so long because it was willing to change
its strategies and philosophies in order to meet its end goal of legitimizing
contraceptive sterilization and making sure that all those who wanted – and
some more eugenically-minded members would argue needed – sterilization
had access to surgery. The formal eugenics movement concluded around
the 1950s, but AVS placed itself at the forefront of what I term a "neo-eugenics"
movement around this time by casting sterilization as a solution to
contemporary social "problems" like an expanding welfare system,
concerns about overpopulation, and rising rates of unwed motherhood. Its
leaders tapped into conservative Cold War anxieties and marketed the
benefits of contraceptive sterilization effectively.
MVD: You link sterilization to many other
social and political issues: fear of communism, immigration,
genocide, and informed consent, to name a few. Can you give an example
of the way these issues intersect?
RK: The stereotype of the "welfare queen"
is a good example. This myth is neo-eugenic in nature because it is
based on the idea that "defective" traits like poverty and illegitimacy
are reproduced via culture. Opponents to welfare and other social services
attack the reproductive fitness of poor women, especially women of color,
and reinforce a common notion that women who receive public assistance
should relinquish some of their reproductive rights in exchange for
aid because white, middle class tax payers have a right to dictate the
reproductive decisions of poor women in the interest of society, on
behalf of the "collective good" you mentioned earlier.
MVD: The irony of
this idea is that the same social stratification which allows for abusive
reproductive policies and practices creates the systemic oppressions
that put people in disadvantaged situations. What groups attempt to
address the underlying issues of racism,
poverty, and gender norms instead of writing
individuals off as "unfit"?
RK: Welfare rights activists certainly framed
their opposition to forced sterilization in terms of abuse being caused
by racism, poverty, and sexism. Feminists of color, radical white feminists,
and groups like the Young Lords did the same. Despite their efforts
for change, though, the systems that perpetuate economic inequalities,
racism, and sexism remain in place, in part because neo-eugenic attitudes
perpetuated them and did so in a way that effectively removing systemic
oppressions from the discussion by blaming individual women for their
status in society.
MVD: The reproductive rights movement
is currently undergoing a serious overhaul
away from "white women’s issues," like abortion, and toward
a philosophy of reproductive justice that takes a more complex look
at how systemic oppression influences reproduction.
It seems like you agree this is a positive development.
RK: I think the white feminist community
is more aware of a broader philosophy of reproductive justice than it
has been in the past, in larger part because of organizations like SisterSong and New Voices Pittsburgh. White radical feminists "got it" in
the 1970s and were the only group to advance a political agenda that
did not foreground their race and class interests. They were willing
to accept restrictions on voluntary sterilization in order to protect
poor women of color from sterilization abuse. Abortion is one of many
reproductive rights, not the reproductive right. Abortion rights
meant little to women forcibly sterilized. Sterilization is not as controversial
as abortion, but it carries the same potential to be life changing.
"Technology is value free. The artificial womb is neither inherently
good nor inherently bad. It is simply a tool. Like all tools however,
humans could choose to put it to use in ways that are good or bad.'
"We must come to grips with the complex interplay of factors that
shape women's reproductive agency, and consider women's agency as well
as the other values and relations at stake. Until we do so, we cannot
assume the benign use of the artificial womb, for all its benefits."
"Imagine then what might happen if a woman was deemed unfit to carry
her child: if a woman was doing things deemed harmful to her foetus —
like taking drugs, or smoking, or drinking alcohol. It is not too far a stretch to suggest that the state — or even the father of the foetus — might step in. That is because the state is already doing so.
Where women in the US, for example, are being jailed for mistreatment
of their foetuses, the artificial womb may seem a preferable
alternative. The court might order a Caesarean section, remove the
foetus, and have it 'properly' cared for in the artificial womb. The
mother may or may not be permitted to apply for custody once it is born.
This scenario again separates child from mother — not due to the free
exercise of will of either a woman wanting to be a mother, or a man
wanting to be a father. Instead, it interposes a denial of a woman's
free will at the behest of the state or the child's father. Despite an
ostensible value placed on the wellbeing of the child, the mother is
disregarded as a person."
"Our reproductive
choices are shaped by the weight of social expectations, economic
opportunities, and access to childcare, contraception, and abortion.
Each of these factors can operate to support women's reproductive
freedom, or be wielded as a tool of control over women's bodies."
Artificial womb has many possible futures
- Kate Galloway
- 08 May 2017
One of the big science stories in the last month has been the invention of an artificial womb. The device has successfully assisted a number of lamb foetuses to term, and scientists are hopeful it will also assist premature human babies.
What
a wonderful development, to alleviate the health complications for
those tiny babies and reduce the heartache for their parents.
But the potential of the invention does not stop there. As one scientist said,
'It's appealing to imagine a world where artificial wombs grow babies,
eliminating the health risk of pregnancy.' Will this invention be used
for women unable to carry a baby to term? Can it be used by women who
choose not to carry their own baby? Will pregnant women be forced to
give up their baby to the device? Will it replace women altogether?
Technology is value free. The artificial womb is neither inherently
good nor inherently bad. It is simply a tool. Like all tools however,
humans could choose to put it to use in ways that are good or bad. This
technology therefore has many futures. That it can assist premature
babies is not hard to see as an important and valuable use. Imagine,
however, using the device to grow a baby from scratch: from in vitro
conception to gestation in a bag. A boon, you might think, for women
unable to carry a child.
The device would serve as a surrogate — without the complexities
of human relationships. This might afford women reproductive agency,
freeing them from the limitations of their bodies to be able to have a
child. As more women might become mothers, so too might society benefit
from the value of children who would otherwise not be born.
It is not only women who might avail themselves of this option.
Anyone wanting to have a baby might use the device. Unlike other forms
of artificial reproduction the artificial womb might separate women from
gestation and birth altogether. Theoretically, all that is required is
an egg. This raises different ethical questions altogether from that of
the previous scenario. It poses questions about the nature of woman as
mother, and also about the child birthed independently of any mother. It
causes us to rethink not only biological or genetic relationships, but
social relationships.
Then there is the matter of reproductive freedom for women who are
able to be pregnant, but who do not wish to be so. Shulamith Firestone imagined
a future for women freed from the strictures of pregnancy, where babies
grew externally to their bodies, and were collectively raised. Thus
freed, women could participate fully in society. Aldous Huxley likewise
imagined such a world.Pregnancy and labour are not only potentially life-threatening, but they can also restrict women's health and vitality. Not always of course, as Serena Williams has so marvellously demonstrated.
"Each of these factors can operate to support women's reproductive freedom, or be wielded as a tool of control over women's bodies."
Rather than a means of excluding women from motherhood, the
artificial womb could instead be a device of liberation for women whose
lives need not miss a beat while their baby grows safely with the aid of
science. Such a use need not alienate child from parent, and may
express a woman's free will — but it may still challenge values grounded
in perceptions of sex and biology perceived to be innate, or natural.
So useful might the device become however, that women may even be
required to use it. One consequence of society's identification of women
as mothers is that we have erased the identity of women as women.
Mothers, and particularly pregnant women, are almost universally judged
as 'good' or 'bad' mothers by friends, family, and strangers alike. We
are bombarded by media stories of what mothers, and pregnant women, must
do in the best interests of their child.
Imagine then what might happen if a woman was deemed unfit to carry
her child: if a woman was doing things deemed harmful to her foetus —
like taking drugs, or smoking, or drinking alcohol. It is not too far a stretch to suggest that the state — or even the father of the foetus — might step in. That is because the state is already doing so.
Where women in the US, for example, are being jailed for mistreatment
of their foetuses, the artificial womb may seem a preferable
alternative. The court might order a Caesarean section, remove the
foetus, and have it 'properly' cared for in the artificial womb. The
mother may or may not be permitted to apply for custody once it is born.
This scenario again separates child from mother — not due to the free
exercise of will of either a woman wanting to be a mother, or a man
wanting to be a father. Instead, it interposes a denial of a woman's
free will at the behest of the state or the child's father. Despite an
ostensible value placed on the wellbeing of the child, the mother is
disregarded as a person.
It only took a few paragraphs in this article for the miraculous,
life-saving device to become a futuristic dystopian tool of oppression.
This is relevant to us in Australia because at the moment, women cannot
be said to enjoy unrestricted reproductive freedom. Our reproductive
choices are shaped by the weight of social expectations, economic
opportunities, and access to childcare, contraception, and abortion.
Each of these factors can operate to support women's reproductive
freedom, or be wielded as a tool of control over women's bodies.
We must come to grips with the complex interplay of factors that
shape women's reproductive agency, and consider women's agency as well
as the other values and relations at stake. Until we do so, we cannot
assume the benign use of the artificial womb, for all its benefits.
No comments:
Post a Comment