Judy Wajcman
Chapter 3: Reproductive Technology: Delivered into Men Hands
Review by Natalie Wheelan
Introduction
Feminist Perspectives
on Reproductive Technology
Technology as the Key to
Women Liberation
Reproductive Technology
as Patriarchal Domination
Reproductive Technology as Neutral
The Medicalization
and Mechanization of Childbirth
Technology and Professionalism
The Sexual Relations
of Contraceptive Technology
Conclusions
Introduction
In this seminar I will review Judy Wajcman eproductive Technology:
Delivered into Men Hands?from her book eminism Confronts Technology?
Wajcman presents a number of feminist viewpoints within technology and
most specifically Reproductive Technology. She also offers some well structured
criticism and displays her own view that the social and political shaping
of reproductive technology has contributed to the masculinization of an
area that was previously a woman sphere. She examines feminist perspectives
on reproductive technologies and places them in their wider context in
society.
Feminist
Perspectives on Reproductive Technology
The literature on reproductive technology is rife with technological
determinist arguments. There are many positives to the technological advancements
such as putting an end to dangerous and painful aspects of giving birth.
Fertility control can be seen as the key to women equality. Women are
becoming able to control their own bodies. The question this article raises
is for whom and what objectives these technologies have developed?
Technology
as the Key to Women Liberation
In the early stage of the contemporary women movement, reproductive
technology was seen as particularly progressive. Shulamith Firestone in
the ialectic of Sex?(1970) believed that the only way to ensure the
equality of women and men would be to develop an effective contraceptive
and birth technologies. This would free women from the tyranny of reproduction.
She believed this would be possible through the artificial womb.
Some of what Firestone said is coming true although she makes some rather utopian statements in my opinion and does not see the wider effects of reproductive technology on society.
For example, the use of embryos for scientific research is becoming
a major source of controversy. In Australia, Europe and North America there
is growing debate over the impact these reproductive technologies will
have on women lives. These new technologies are about fulfilling, rather
than rejecting as Firestone said we should do, the traditional feminine
role. Much of the feminist discussion centres on the notion of choice and
whether the right to choose abortion can be equated with the right to have
a child.
Reproductive
Technology as Patriarchal Domination
Wajcman cites FINRRAGE (Feminist International Network of Resistance
to Reproductive and Genetic Engineering) as one of the most radical vocalists
in their opposition to genetic and reproductive technologies. FINRRAGE
see the women reproductive role as the source of their identity.
?The qualities of mothering or maternal thinking stand in opposition to the destructive, violent and self aggrandizing characteristics of men.?
Reproduction is seen as the source of women power and the separation of reproduction and sexuality is seen as an attack on women; yet another form of male violence towards women. FINRRAGE believes those technologies that were considered dangerous when they were first introduced should be feared in case they become routine.
The female body is likened to the animal which male scientists do their research on. The female body has become a iving laboratory?according to these feminists.
Women will eventually become professional breeders and men will have control of human creation and women will be redundant. Men want to be able to control the female reproductive system and onfine and limit and curb the creativity and potentially polluting power of female procreation which is male womb envy.
Maria Mies makes the point that it does not matter whether a man or
a woman applies this technology ?it is a form of domination whatever.
Reproductive technologies are about conquering the last frontier of man
domination over nature.
Reproductive
Technology as Neutral
A less radical approach to seeing reproductive technology emphasizes
the ambivalent effects on the lives of women. We should not reject these
innovations ?they may well offer indispensable resources. These new powers
have the potential to empower as well as disempower; feminist discussions
for this group is very much in terms of the osts and benefits?of reproductive
technologies.
It is important to see these innovations in terms of women infertility problems rather than in terms of the women who participate in them as linded by science? Reproductive technologies may be the only opportunity infertile women have to assert their right to reproductive choice. This debate is more recent. Reproductive technologies have different implications for different societies e.g. the 1st and 3rd worlds. This feminist group talks in terms of the olitics of Reproductive Technology. Access to the benefits of expensive techniques such as invitro fertilisation is heavily related to the ability to pay. Women who are poor and vulnerable cannot have access to these technologies. This raises ethical issues over sex predetermination. In India the technique of amniocentesis is currently being used to preselect female fetuses for abortion in India.
It is clear that reproductive technologies are a double-edged sword.
It is not the function of the technologies themselves but their abuse.
On the one hand women have greater choice on the other they can be seen
as the domination and control of the medical profession and the state
over women lives. This critique demands knowledge and resources in order
that women can shape their definitions themselves.
The
Medicalization and Mechanization of Childbirth
A major focus of feminist historians of medicine has been to document
the central role of woman healers and midwives before the advent of modern
medicine. There is well documented evidence to suggest that a bitter contest
took place, throughout the eighteenth century between midwives and the
emerging male profession. From about 1720 onwards an increasing number
of males were entering the profession of midwifery in direct competition
with women. It wasn until the invention of forceps in 1730 by William
Smellie that men could have any impact in the profession. Midwives were
forbidden by tradition to use instruments so by the invention of forceps
men were able to get a foothold into the woman domain so causing the
midwives to lose their monopoly on birth and birthing techniques.
Clearly there are other factors that resulted in the ascendancy of the male obstetricians but it is interesting to note that male domination is located in the wider social structure of things rather than expertise on the male side. In fact the male midwife may have been a poor counterpart of the female. According to Faulkener the oung male midwives were often incompetent and frequently used instruments unnecessarily to hasten the birth and save time, often damaging the mother and killing the baby.?Thus technical intervention became the hallmark of male medical practice.
In western society these days, childbirth has become increasingly and routinely technologically orientated. This edical management?of childbirth can be seen by some feminist writers as the male profession reducing women to the status of reproductive objects, engendering adverse emotional experiences for childbearing women. The process has been transformed from a natural to a pathological one.
Women have tolerated this system which apparently passifies and alienates
because of the positive aspects of the technology of pregnancy, labour
and birth. This is exemplified by caesarian section and decreased numbers
in neo-natal death. Yet it still remains that women whose welfare would
benefit most from these technologies have least access.
Technology and Professionalism
There are a number of reasons why certain reproductive technologies
have developed and others have not. Socio-economic factors play a huge
role in the development of technologies before their appropriateness or
efficiency has been determined.
Technology is central to claims of professionalism and therefore legitimacy.
For example, the stethoscope was not invented as a device superior to the
ear but because the social mores of the time forbade a doctor to listen
to the heart of young women. The routine use of ultrasound imaging in pregnancy
despite scepticism regarding its medical benefits. It was first developed
for use in the tracking of submarines in World War I. Research into IVF
programmes was not fuelled by the needs of infertile women but by wider
socio-economic forces at work.
The
Sexual Relations of Contraceptive Technology
The example of the Pill is quite all encompassing. Technological determinist,
male domination and social and economic factors are involved. The Pill
meant massive social changes for women. Women could take control of their
fertility. How far does the Pill go in asserting the freedom of choice
for women? Does the Pill merely allow the sexual domination of women by
men in that it still allows for male pleasure? The Pill is favoured by
doctors because it requires little technical explanation. It is favoured
by pharmaceutical companies because it generates large profits. It is also
the most reliable form of contraception yet it is associated with dangerous
health risks for women. Men and women have different patterns of sexual
behaviour, so is the design of contraceptives by men emphasising male sexual
pleasure but underestimating the health risks involved for women? Wajcman
does not feel that the Pill has bought about women liberation, women
have gained liberation through political and social mobilisation.
Conclusions
My own conclusions are that the feminist perspective on Genetics and
Technology is on the one hand fragmented, showing little agreement yet
on the other has some very valid insights into how reproductive technologies
can be viewed. It is clear that women who are already advanced in society
are able to use these technologies to their advantage. Yet it is interesting
to note that the Pill (the contraceptive technologies which Shulamith Firestone
thought would liberate women) is the contraceptive most likely to damage
women health yet it is available on the NHS. Is this a form of exploitation
by the male medical profession who designed the Pill or is it simply a
product of the Western worlds social structure?
Can reproductive technologies ever serve to liberate and equate women with men?
Reproductive Technologies cannot only be described as the male domination
of men over women yet the social conditions involved in the advancement
of men over women makes it difficult to believe that Reproductive Technologies
could ever really truly liberate women.