Course:ANTH213/2024/topic/Reproduction

From UBC Wiki
A representation of the importance of community in Black parenting, by illustrator Madelyn Goodnight.

Introduction: Reproduction

Anthropological understandings of human reproduction go beyond the biological to consider the social, cultural, and structural factors that shape reproduction as a process that in all contexts is classed, gendered, and racialized[1]. Reproduction is central to human experience: it is the means by which we are all created and will go on to create, or choose not to create, future generations. Herein lies the high stakes of reproduction; it holds the power to ensure the continuity of not only human biology but societies, and the values and structures they uphold. With this power comes transformative possibility to reproduce differently. Much like Judith Butler’s Gender Performativity[2], societies and cultures are in part constituted by a repetition of reproductive customs and regimes transmitted across generations. Thus, by altering the way reproduction occurs, society can transform. Approaching reproduction from this lens, it becomes a powerful locus of social control manipulated historically and contemporarily by those seeking power to create and reify class, sex, and racial hierarchies.

Race acts as an explanatory framework through which we can understand how reproduction is co-opted to realize the goals of the powerful. Racist logics underlie colonial beliefs and ideologies of reproduction, including regimes of forced or prohibited sexual relationships, the weaponization of Indigenous mothering, and anxieties felt about interracial children. Capitalist economic structures of societal norms and expectations surrounding reproduction are another venue of racial inequality. Profit-based markets within healthcare, media that serves to replicate gendered norms of reproduction and second wave feminism's attempts at resistance, illustrate inherent ties of capitalism, class, and race. Today, reproductive technologies like surrogacy raise questions of ethics, rights, and moral challenges; questions that ultimately fall along racial lines. In the face of these profound reproductive inequities, the framework of Reproductive Justice was coined by Black feminists to decenter conversations from the reductionist dichotomy of “choice”, towards ensuring all people have the social, material, and community conditions needed to birth and raise children the way they want to. This expansive conceptualization exemplifies how reproduction can and has been reimagined by the Racialized to conceive just and joyful futures.

Reproduction and Race

The intersection of reproduction in racial contexts has been a subject of extensive scholarly investigation, revealing complex dynamics that span historical anxieties, societal fears, the portrayal of victims, and contemporary perspectives. Drawing upon a rich array of academic contributions, this concept explores how racial identities and the social meanings attached to race impact reproductive rights, health, and behaviors within different societies.

The historical backdrop of racial anxieties concerning interracial reproduction is vividly illustrated in the European colonial empires, which presented the colonial project that was deeply intertwined with controlling sexual morality and reproduction to maintain European dominance and racial purity[3]. The fear of "racial degeneration" through interracial relationships was a pervasive theme, leading to policies that strictly regulated the intimate lives of colonizers and colonized alike, aiming to prevent the birth of mixed-race children who were seen as a threat to the colonial order.

Similarly, Asian female migration to Canada highlights how national debates around including or excluding these women from the emerging Canadian nation-state were steeped in anxieties over maintaining a white settler identity. The inclusion of Asian women was debated within the context of preventing interracial relationships between Asian men and white women, which was feared to challenge the racial purity and identity of the Canadian nation[4]. Therefore, colonial histories and the legacy of slavery have long-term effects on the reproductive rights and health of racialized populations in many parts of the world. These legacies continuously perpetuate cycles of disadvantage and marginalization until now.

Historical racial stereotypes have significantly shaped reproductive policies, influencing societal and governmental attitudes towards mixed-race families. For example, in environments with strict racial purity laws, such as those enforced by the Nazi regime, certain groups faced coercive sterilization or restrictive family planning policies. These prejudiced measures, based on dubious beliefs about genetic and socio-economic suitability for parenthood, were aimed at controlling the demographic composition of nations. The enduring impact of these policies has continued to place mixed families and their children in a marginalized position, reinforcing a social hierarchy that stigmatizes and discriminates against them[5].

The enduring legacy of historical discrimination continues to shape the contemporary challenges faced by interracial couples as they navigate their distinct cultural and racial backgrounds. Each partner in such a relationship might introduce unique cultural beliefs and practices related to reproduction, which can significantly influence decisions around fertility treatments, childbirth, and parenting styles. These differences require careful negotiation and understanding to harmonize the varied expectations and traditions each partner brings into the relationship. This negotiation process is critical, as it not only affects the couple's relationship dynamics but also plays a significant role in the health and wellbeing of their family.

The victim narrative surrounding interracial reproduction becomes particularly poignant recently. Interracial couples encounter significant societal and personal challenges that include intense scrutiny and entrenched stereotypes. These external pressures can severely constrain their reproductive choices, often reinforcing harmful racial stereotypes and undermining the autonomy of individuals, especially women. Women in interracial relationships may find their reproductive decisions—such as the choice of when and how to have children—particularly scrutinized, reflecting broader societal anxieties about racial purity and the continuation of cultural heritage. This scrutiny not only impacts their personal liberty but also stresses the relationship, as couples must navigate the external perceptions and biases alongside their private desires and plans for the future[6].

Interracial relationships becomes especially complex when considering the societal challenges in Asian contexts, where traditional values often uphold ethnic homogeneity within family units. Marrying outside one's race can provoke significant social stigma and familial disapproval, impacting women profoundly as they bear the cultural expectation to uphold racial and ethnic boundaries. In many Asian societies, the decision to engage in interracial marriages can lead to ostracization and substantial familial resistance, which are particularly pronounced for women due to ingrained gender roles that prioritize their positions as bearers and nurturers of cultural heritage. This societal pressure is not merely abstract but manifests in tangible challenges that can include everything from social exclusion to legislative hurdles impacting immigration, residency rights, and the legal recognition of children from interracial unions[7].

Different cultural and racial backgrounds can bring diverse perspectives and practices concerning reproduction which can significantly influence decisions around family planning and fertility treatments. Especially within Muslim migrant communities, intercultural relationships can challenge entrenched cultural norms [8]. The societal and legal scrutiny of such unions often reflects fears of cultural dilution and the loss of traditional social hierarchies, akin to historical policies designed to prevent cultural assimilation.

Racial disparities are also prominently visible in the domain of reproductive healthcare, where minority groups often face significant barriers. These challenges encompass both the accessibility and quality of healthcare services, directly influencing maternal health outcomes. Forced marriage prevention in Australia shows even well-intentioned legal and social frameworks can inadvertently uphold barriers that minority communities face[8]. These frameworks often do not account for the nuanced healthcare needs of interracial couples or migrant communities, thereby perpetuating higher rates of reproductive health issues.

Hence, interracial relationships and reproduction inherently challenge established racial boundaries and societal norms, often facing discrimination or social scrutiny. The children of these unions may navigate complex racial identities, dealing with the dual heritage and often reconciling conflicting cultural norms. Contemporary manifestations of racial anxieties often problematize interracial and intercultural relationships, viewing them not as personal choices of partnership and family formation, but as issues to be managed. This scrutiny can shape the identities of couples and their children, who may face persistent questions about their legitimacy and place within society.

Despite these challenges, the evolution of societal perspectives on interracial reproduction points to a growing recognition of the complexities of identity and the multifaceted nature of family life. Legal reforms, increased social acceptance, and the visibility of diverse family structures in media and public discourse all signal progress toward a more inclusive understanding of interracial relationships. However, legal and societal interventions still frequently approach these relationships from a perspective of problematization rather than empowerment, underscoring the need for continued advocacy and reform.

Reproduction and Colonialism

Colonialism is an ideology rooted in the desire to advance ones country, economy, and social power through exploitative measures that require the physical labour, extraction, and dominance of another nation’s Indigenous land, resources, and peoples. To maintain these political and economic advancements, colonial officials would often intervene in the private lives and intimacies of Indigenous households and societies.[9] The most attractive option to colonial powers, included the sexual dominance of Indigenous women.[3] This colonial project was referred to as Concubinage. Concubinage granted colonial officials the access to Indigenous women’s bodies, labour and reproductive systems.[3] In addition, Indigenous women were forced to assist colonial officials in the domination of their own people, by inserting European values and ideologies into Indigenous households,[10] in order to “civilize”[10] them.

The justification of sexual dominance included the belief that Indigenous women were sexually immoral, and therefore available and in need of European sexual morality.[9] The European standard of sexual morality established Christian values and beliefs of “normal sexual behaviour” into colonial societies. [9] Furthermore, patriarchal values were the foundation in colonial societies, whereas in most North American, Indigenous cultures, matriarchal values were respected.[11] This created the justification of sexual dominance, as patriarchal values upheld the belief that women were domestic, motherly figures. [11] The patriarchal values within Colonialism legitimized the sexual dominance of Indigenous women, as it forced them into these values.[11] Furthermore, the idea that Indigenous women were sexually available and created to be pillaged, came from the idea that the earth, as a female figure, could be pillaged and exploited for patriarchal and colonial gains.

The sexualization of Indigenous women’s bodies were also a means of justification, as it produced an image of eroticism, [12]meant to be explored. This is evident in The Colonial Harem,[12] which is a collection of postcards depicting Algerian women and produced by the French. [12]Prior to these images, Algerian women wore veiled garments, thereby concealing their bodies from the public eye. However, French photographers wanted this access and began to capture and stage the erotic photography of Indigenous Algerian women. [12] The women captured in these postcards were sex workers and women of lower-class. [12] This made the photographs all the more justifiable, as these women were of lower class and needed the income. In addition to this, the erotic images portrayed the image that their veil was a form of oppression, and needed to be removed in order to be free. This further justified the sexualization of these women, as it provided the argument that these women wanted to be free of this oppression. The portrayal of these women, while coerced, gave colonial societies access into the intimate lives of Algerian women’s bodies, and further created the justification for having sexual access to, and over Indigenous Algerian women.

In addition to the sexualization of Indigenous women’s bodies, colonial societies created the image that non-European men were violent, and therefore, non-European women were needed to protect European women.[4] In the Canadian context, during the nineteenth-century, Canadian policy makers created laws to prevent female migrants from China. Japan, and India from entering Canada.[4] Male migrants from these countries, however, were allowed to enter as workers, thereby advancing the Canadian economy.[4] Asian women posed a threat to the “Physical reproduction of a ‘white’ nation,”[4] not only because of their perceived immorality, but because of their ability to produce Asian children in a white Canada (source 6).[4] In addition, Asian men were portrayed as violent figures within Canadian culture, especially towards white women. [4] The fear of sexual relationships between Asian men and white women were especially prominent in this fear, due to the reproduction of mixed raced children.[4] White women were warned about Asian men to prevent them from forming a sexual relationship. [4] Various solutions were created to restrict these relationships from happening, one solution was to promote sexual relationships between Asian men and Indigenous women. [4] The agreed upon solution was to allow Asian women to enter Canada, thereby protecting white women from Asian men, by putting Asian women in harms way and removing the possibility of interracial relationships.[4]

Reproduction under colonial rule was an exploitative process that valued patriarchal and western ideologies views of female autonomy and reproduction. [11]The emphasis of these values disrupted Indigenous ways of living and reproducing. Prior to Colonialism, Indigenous cultures in North America valued the matriarchal authority of women.[11] Traditionally, tribal and clan ties were attributed to the maternal lineage.[11] Indigenous children’s identity held strong ties their mother’s tribe and clan affiliation. [11] Reproduction was a sacred process in which pregnancy, menstruation, and birth were “revered”. [11] Female leaders would even aid in the recovery and care of the new mother and child. [11] When colonial ideologies began to insert themselves into Indigenous households, these cultural practices were disregarded in favour of western medicinal practices.[11] Colonial officials emphasized, and even encouraged patriarchal values within society, stating that it was their “God- given rights as men of the household,” [11] to be dominant and revered figures. Indigenous women were forced to adhere to these patriarchal values, and were no longer able to practice their traditional and cultural practices of birth and reproduction.[11]

To reiterate, reproduction was used as a tool for colonial dominance. European colonial powers included the Dutch, the British, the French, and many more.[9] Reproduction was one of the many tools used to dominate other countries with vast resources that could economically benefit colonial states. From their dominance, colonial officials would sexually dominate Indigenous women, thereby receiving sexual benefits, and the labour required to conquer the nation,[9] through concubinage. These sexual relationships resulted in the reproduction of “multiracial persons”.[9] However, their very existence challenged the racial purity that so many European states desired. In fact, It was extremely rare for the biological father to recognize their child with the Indigenous mother. [9] Furthermore, these relationships further advanced the European economy. With their reproductive capabilities, Indigenous women created the next generation of workers and labourers, created to become exploitative commodities for the European economy. All the while destroying the natural resources and land of Indigenous peoples, primarily using Indigenous women as reproductive machines and barriers of violence to advance the European economy.

Reproduction and Capitalism

Capitalist ideologies underpin many contemporary societies and cultures. As an economic system reliant on private ownership and a profit fuelled structure, feminists emphasise how it reinforces gendered inequalities and restricts reproductive freedom and choice. This section will outline the way in which capitalist practices influence societal norms around reproduction, healthcare inequalities, and policy decisions. It will also illustrate the role of second wave feminism in improving reproductive rights for women globally.


The evolution of capitalism over centuries across global societies and cultures has resulted in a dominant prioritisation of profit making for the upper class, over social equality, and justice. This has had consequences for women’s rights and freedoms as capitalist economies often shape individuals' reproductive choices based on employment considerations. Rioux[13] outlines how under capitalist systems issues such as lack of paid family leave, access to affordable childcare, and workplace discrimination against pregnant individuals can influence when and how people choose to have children, highlighting the intersection between economic factors and reproductive autonomy.


The root of capitalism’s impact on reproduction lies with its foundational model of being a system which relies on profit making. Ultimately, women’s reproductive rights suffer at the hands of those in power of capitalist political structures, in order for money to be made. This is predominantly evident in the global commodification of reproduction and in turn, gendered inequalities. This commodification of reproduction became apparent decades ago when capitalist powers realised gendered inequalities became profitable. In “Pink and Blue Forever” Fausto-Sterling[14] demonstrates how historically colours used to represent genders we were not strictly segregated, however moving into modern and contemporary society socially produced gender coding has emerged and become marketable. Capitalism has exacerbated gender stereotyping through producing products, like baby clothes and toys, for profit to be made out of the strictly distinguished norms.


These gendered inequalities are now directly related to restrictions on reproductive rights for women, as other aspects of gender identity are marketed and manipulated also. For example, under capitalist systems, healthcare often becomes commodified, meaning it is treated as a product or service to be bought and sold. This can create barriers to accessing reproductive health services, especially for marginalized communities who may face financial constraints or lack insurance coverage for essential care like contraception and abortion [15]. Moreover, in a capitalist framework, healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies may prioritise profit motives over patient well-being. This can lead to inflated costs for reproductive health services, limited availability of affordable contraception options, and pressure to prioritise profitable procedures over patient-centred care. Furthermore, Capitalist societies tend to perpetuate healthcare inequality, with wealthier individuals having greater access to comprehensive reproductive health services, including fertility treatments, while low-income individuals may face barriers to accessing basic reproductive care[16]. This socioeconomic disparity intersects with issues of race, gender, and class, further impacting marginalised communities. Through making reproduction marketable, healthcare systems under the capitalist economic structure exacerbate reproductive inequalities.


Aiming to combat unequal gendered practices that are embedded in capitalist societies, second wave feminism emerged in the 1960s widening the scope of feminist concerns beyond voting and legal change, to addressing issues like reproductive rights. Through engaging in various forms of activism, like protests, to consciousness-raising groups, and lobbying for legislative changes, the movement played a crucial role in advancing women's rights, arguing that safe and legal abortion was essential for women's bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom. During this time second wave feminist also played a significant role in pushing for comprehensive reproductive health care, including access to prenatal care, childbirth options, and treatment for reproductive health conditions[17]. They highlighted the importance of affordable and accessible healthcare services for women's overall well-being. Also, ensuring to advocate for increased access to contraception, including birth control pills and devices like intrauterine devices (IUDs). They argued that women should have the right to make informed decisions about their reproductive health and family planning. Capitalist systems had historically overlooked these support systems and disregarded women’s wellbeing to favour profit-based markets.


Furthermore, second wave feminists were specifically instrumental in framing reproductive rights within a broader context of reproductive justice. This concept emphasises not just the legal and medical aspects of reproductive rights but also social, economic, and racial factors that impact individuals' ability to make reproductive choices. It addresses issues such as reproductive coercion, forced sterilisation, and disparities in access to care based on race and socioeconomic status. Through educational campaigns and advocacy, feminists have raised awareness about reproductive rights and tackle societal norms and policies that have restricted women's autonomy in matters of reproduction. Organisations like Planned Parenthood have played a crucial role in providing reproductive health services and information during this period.


Despite the work of second wave feminists to provide greater support for women and improve reproductive rights globally, it is undeniable that capitalisms influence is still deeply imbedded in gendered culture and societies perception of reproductive identities. Unequal attitudes towards reproduction as a result of capitalism is reinforced in the youth population also. The study of ‘Hook-up Cultures’[18] emphasises how expected stereotypical gendered norms on sexuality and reproduction are enforced across college campuses. Women feel the need to use strategic ambiguity when talking about their sexual experiencing, lessening the truth over fear being negatively labelled by their peers. This emphasised femininity women practice meet the expectations of hegemonic masculinity. In turn, the capitalist system is benefitted through making women less confident in their reproductive rights. Consequently, these insecure women may buy products or undergo cosmetic procedures (benefitting capitalism) to feel more comfortable in themselves.


Furthermore, the role of social media in contemporary society makes it easier for a dominant stereotype be projected into the public. In capitalist societies the media works to promote certain body ideals and manipulates reproductive freedoms to make the most money. For example, in “Out of Bounds? A Critique of the New Policies on Hyperandrogenism in Elite Female Athletes.” Karkaziz et al.[19], use the example of South African runner, Caster Semenya, to highlight how characteristics of hyperandrogenic athletes that don’t fit the norm, and won’t benefit the capitalist system (by making them money through entertainment and sport), are rejected and publicly humiliated. The press and media scrutinise those who don’t conform to the expected gender characteristics, and in turn their reproductive health and intimacies are over analysed and exposed.


Ultimately, capitalist systems are based on economic profit and are deep rooted in societal institutions. Unequal reproductive norms are reinforced within society ensuring the profits and the retention of power in the upper class and further polarising minority groups. Despite the work of second wave feminists to progress reproductive rights and improve treatment of women, there is still work to be done to combat the grip capitalism has on determining reproduction in society.

Reproduction and Surrogacy

Surrogacy was invented in 1944 by Dr. ​​John Rock and lab technician Miriam Menkin who were the first people to successfully fertilize an egg. Then in 1978, Louise Brown was the first child to be born from a successful term of IVF treatment. Finally in 1984, a woman carried out the first gestational surrogacy.  

There are two kinds of surrogacies, traditional and gestational.[20] Traditional surrogacy is when the surrogate mother uses their own egg to be fertilized by the sperm donor, so they are to have genetic relations to the infant. While gestational surrogacy is when the egg from the mother is fertilized by the fathers sperm to then be put into the surrogate mother as a whole, meaning there is no genetic relation between the child and surrogate mother. This can also be done by getting a donor egg and fertilizing that with sperm before putting it into the surrogate mother.

In 2004, the Canadian federal government banned commercial surrogacy, including payments to surrogates, agencies that provide connections to surrogates, and advertising surrogate services.[21] The federal government placed an Assisted Human Reproduction Act, AHR Act, to control the exploitation and ethical issues they were facing over parentage, financial exploitation, and violating the women's rights over their own autonomy. What is not illegal in Canada is the practice of altruistic surrogacy which is when the surrogate mother chooses to become a surrogate through the desire to help couples, and individuals who may not be able start their families themselves.

In the AHR Act, it states that it is illegal to provide any kind of compensation for their service, this includes offering to pay off their house mortgage, schooling or school loans, and credit card bills[21]. Surrogates in Canada will be reimbursed though the expecting parents, throughout all stages of their pregnancy, as well as coverage over pre-pregnancy treatments and postpartum expenses. This includes lost wages from any point before the pregnancy, during the pregnancy and through postpartum. The expenses of medications and appointments needed during the pregnancy and during postpartum will also be covered by the clients and the surrogate should not suffer any financial loss during, after and before the pregnancy. The guidelines for reimbursement and other legal issues are stated in a legal agreement document created by lawyers for the protection and safety of everyone involved. Once the agreement is finalized, the surrogate is able to go to the clinics to be inseminated and begin the pregnancy process.

Payments that are illegal in Canada can be provided to surrogates if the transaction takes place outside of Canada, a loophole that attracts foreign agencies and individuals. Foreign places can take advantage of this loophole and provide the services that are illegal in many countries. Women from the Global South serve as cheap labour for transnational surrogacy in the Global North. Many women in these counties, when they reach the legal age, will engage in commercial surrogacy as a form of income for themselves and their families. Women and couples will take advantage of this as there are far less surrogates in the Global North. A popular example of this is in India where surrogacy has not been banned yet. In a few places like Mexico and India, there is a precarious market that developed as a result of increased scrutiny and regulation of other transnational surrogacy agencies.

“The Mexican surrogacy industry was established by international surrogacy agencies to meet market demand for “low-cost” surrogacy options, especially for same-sex couples and single intended parents.” [22]

Intended parents commonly try to choose an egg donor or surrogate with similar features to one or both of the parents to help eliminate future complications their child may face in fitting into societies standards.

The market will often fly in egg donors who are from the United States of America, South Africa and the Ukraine to name a few, for the most desired genetic makeup in the surrogacy industry, “white” babies[23]. In the case for gay men looking for egg donors, they have to think about how society would treat their future child based on their racial features and the colour of their skin, compared to the skin of the intended fathers[24]. This demonstrates how racialized the surrogacy market is as the selection of egg donors, and the division of reproductive labor in the surrogacy industry reflect and reinforce postcolonial imaginaries of white desirability[25]. this is also known as Reproductive Tourism[26].

Surrogacy in Canada must be done through altruism or there will be fines, whereas in places that support surrogacy, the lines between altruism and commercialism are blurred. The market is able to use altruism to render it morally right in their minds and of the minds of the consumer, while taking advantage of the workers to create a docile labour force. Altruistic surrogacy takes away the women's rights to negotiate their contracts, thus keeping the cost of surrogacy affordable for the intended parents and agencies. These agencies will take the money for the child, demand that the surrogates follow all their rules, and then pay them what little is left after they have taken the majority of the payment for their services to the clients and to the employees. These women will become essentially “prisoners in their own homes"[27] as the agencies will force them to follow strict rules and if they do not, then their money will be withheld from them.

When couples are asked about what they look for in a surrogate one of the more common answers is economic stability. Economic stability was a stand-in for health and hygienic living conditions, but it was also a way for intended parents to preserve their moral self-concept by indicating that the process was not exploitative. This can lead to women hiding their financial situation in order to be seen as a morally acceptable option by the agencies and intended parents.

The concerns surrounding surrogacy stems from the belief that this is a form of trafficking women and using their bodies for profit[28]. Some have concerns that this can be another form if sex work, as technically women are being payed for their reproductive organs. Most of this concern arises from the countries that had commercial surrogacy available, but due to unpopular opinions from women's rights activists, have switched to altruistic surrogacy. The switch, though, does not stop the profit and exploitation of women due to these countries being well advanced in medicine but lacking in the social inequities and the human rights violation standards. These concerns are for the surrogates and the quality of medications they must take and the procedures they will have to undergo. While also violating their abilities to consent to contracts due to language barriers. They are being told that duty to help intended parents start their families is payment enough for them, convincing them they should not desire compensation. Like women in France in the late 19th-century, the government was encouraging women to give birth to help the population grow.[29] Surrogates are being encouraged to give brith to help families in the global North grow.

Surrogacy is a deeply politicized institution for each country as it can follow along their law, but also find ways around them for a higher profit.[30] In the pool of countries that have yet to ban surrogacy, there is an even smaller pool of countries that allow gay men and single women to use their services. This instills the ever present gender normative in our society as, in many cases, only heterosexual couples are able to use surrogacy routes internationally. This keeps the gap between our gendered society and it becoming more fluid by forcing gay couples and single women into more sketchy alternatives who will work around the laws for them.

Reproductive Justice

Illustration by Luci Pina @luc.ipina who says “For this article I thought it would be good to illustrate the range of reproductive choices highlighted in the article, drawing on different women at different points in their lives each dealing/ at times struggling with their own (and often lack of) reproductive choices – additional visual aids are the baby scan, and photograph of an abortion clinic.”



The framework of Reproductive Justice, like many other highly effective resistance movements (ACT UP, Disability Justice, Intersex Rights Movements) was conceived by those directly affected, as a response to a dominant system that was failing to consider, or intentionally not addressing, the needs of their community. A group of Black women in Chicago, recognized that the mainstream fight for reproductive rights, which focused on abortion, represented the interests of middle and upper class white women, and did not consider the intersectional needs of the marginalized[31]. The Pro-choice position, didn’t acknowledge multiple systems of oppression working to limit access to reproductive healthcare for women of colour and other marginalized people worldwide. In 1994 this group, who called themselves Women of African Dsecent for Reproductive Justice gathered in Chicago to draft a statement in reponse to Clinton’s proposed Universal Healthcare Bill[32]. They published their statement “Black Women on Universal Healthcare Reform” in the Washington Post with over eight hundred signatures. Their newly coined concept of Reproductive Justice had three primary assertions: the right to have children, the right not to have children, and the right to raise children in a healthy and safe environment. This framework expands women's reproductive rights outside of the legal and political sphere to encompass the social, economic, and health factors that impact decision making around reproduction. [33]

Juridical approaches for the fight for reproductive rights have focused on legalizing abortion. While that is an essential element of women's liberation, Reproductive Justice points out that having the legal right to choose if you carry a pregnancy to term does not mean you will necessarily have access to abortion services. [34]And of course, those least likely to have access are the already marginalized. The Pro Choice fight relegated abortion to the personal sphere of “privacy rights”, framing it as a choice the government chose to afford you through the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling. But, do you really have choice without a healthcare system to provide that abortion, a safe place to bring that child home to, or an income to sustain yourself on? This is the basis for Reproductive Justice's reframing of reproductive rights debates beyond single issue campaigns won in the courts to a human rights concern necessitating an analysis and deconstuction of power systems that create racialized, sexualized, classed dynamics of reproductive dominance[34]. In this way Reproductive Justice is inherently intersectional as marginalized people face multiple oppressions that compile to restrict access and bodily autonomy. [32]By 1997 Women of African Descent for Reproductive Justice banded together with fifteen other women of colour organizations to form SisterSong, a coallition that remains active to this day, and advocates for the reproductive needs of all marginalized communities[34].

A GIF in which the bottem text rotates throught the words "doulas", "midwives", "birthing options", "prenatal care", and "postpartum support". @intoactionus

The refusal of the Women of African Descent for Reproductive Justice to accept being pushed out of the conversation of reproductive rights can be characterized as a Basue technique, in which groups create pockets of belonging as a survival tactic, within the marginal spaces afforded to them[35]. The reproductive oppression of Black women in the United States runs deep, back to the Jim Crow era where African women were kidnapped by American colonizers and brought stateside so they could be used to reproduce the next generation of slave labour used build the colony. These women were valued only on the basis of their fertility, so long as it served the creation of an America where they would always occupy the least socially powerful positions. As an example of how changes in legality seldom lead to increased equity, the 20th century of the USA, after slavery ended, was marked by the forced or coerced sterilization of thousands deemed “undesirable”. In 1927 a landmark Supreme Court ruling gave legal authority to the practice of sterilizing incarcerated people. In the decade that followed, the North Carolina Eugenics Commission sterilized eight thousand people, five thousand of whom were Black women. Today, twelve American states still have family caps on welfare and incarcerated populations are still sterilized. Loretta J Ross, a seminal scholar in this field, explains that because Black women are stereotyped as having too many children, part of their reproductive freedom includes fighting for the right to have children at all[32]. The framework of Reproductive Justice is a tactic Black women employ to cope with the reproductive oppression they themselves and many other marginalized people experience.


Reproductive Futurism[31], an idea from the LGBT movement, employs a Reproductive Justice lens to critique neoliberal ideas of technological utopia. As exemplified in the above discussion of surrogacy, reproductive (and non-reproductive) technologies may be used to operate existing inequalities, if underlying causes of racism, homophobia, xenophobia (to name a few) are not addressed. Reproductive Futurism urges us to halt capitalist, colonial pursuits of continual expansion, extraction, and technologization to avoid empowering oppressors with improved means of implementing the same ideas. With no moral guidelines reproductive technologies may exploit the vulnerable and desperate while amplifying oppressions like ableism. An example is when expensive pre natal screening is afforded to the already priviledged so they can select able bodied offspring while pregnant disabled people at high risk cannot access the care they need to be safe.[36]

Reference

List of the references here.

  1. ↑ Han, Sallie; Tomori, Cecília, eds. (2021). The Routledge Handbook of Anthropology and Reproduction. Routledge.
  2. ↑ Butler, Judith (1990). Gender Trouble. Routledge.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Stoler, Ann L. (November 1989). "Making Empire Respectable: The Politics of Race and Sexual Morality in 20th-Century Colonial Cultures". American Ethnologist. 16: 634–660 – via JSTOR.
  4. ↑ 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 Dua, Enakshi (24 July 2007). "Exclusion through Inclusion: Female Asian migration in the making of Canada as a white settler nation". Gender, Place & Culture. 14: 445–466 – via Taylor & Francis Online.
  5. ↑ Sovic, Silvia (16 March 2022). "Intermarriage from Central Europe to Central Asia: Mixed Families in the Age of Extremes". Slavic Review. 4: 344 – via Cambridge University Press.
  6. ↑ Afful, Stephanie E. (10 December 2015). "Beyond "Difference": Examining the Process and Flexibility of Racial Identity in Interracial Marriages". Special Issue: Interethnic Marriage in the United States. 71: 659–674.
  7. ↑ Fresnoza-Flot, Asuncion (18 March 2021). "Asia-Europe intimate links: Family migrants, binational couples and mixed-parentage children". Asian and Pacific Migration Journal. 30: 3–17.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Jeweri, Helena (2024). "Introduction: An Emergent Regime of Truth". Between Care and Criminality: Marriage, Citizenship, and Family in Australian Social Welfare: 1–35.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 Schields, Chelsea; Herzog, Dagmar, eds. (May 2021). The Routledge Companion to Sexuality and Colonialism. London: Routledge. p. 386. ISBN 9780429505447.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Voss, Barbara L. (July 2008). "Domesticating Imperialism: Sexual Politics and the Archaeology of Empire". Anthropological Literature, Harvard University. 110. ISSN 0002-7294 – via American Anthropologist.
  11. ↑ 11.00 11.01 11.02 11.03 11.04 11.05 11.06 11.07 11.08 11.09 11.10 11.11 Maxwell, December (January 2023). "Women are the thread: Keetoowah elders' experiences of becoming a mother". Culture, Health, and Sexuality. 25 (10): 1355–1370 – via Taylor and Francis Online.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 Malek, Alloula (1986). "Colonial Harem". University of Minnesota Press – via Project Muse.
  13. ↑ Rioux, Sébastien (January 2015). "Embodied contradictions: Capitalism, social reproduction and body formation". Women's Studies International Forum. 48: 194–202 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  14. ↑ Currier, Danielle M (July 2013). "Strategic Ambiguity: Protecting Emphasized Femininity and Hegemonic Masculinity in the Hookup Culture."". Gender and Society. 27: 704–727 – via Sage Journals.
  15. ↑ Gimenez, Martha E (October 2018). "Reproduction and Procreation under Capitalism: a Marxist-Feminist Analysis". Marx, Women, and Capitalist Social Reproduction. 169: 188–209 – via Brill.
  16. ↑ De Londras, Fiona (October 2019). "Intersectionality, repeal, and reproductive rights in Ireland". Intersectionality and Human Rights, forthcoming. – via SSRN.
  17. ↑ Kline, Wendy (2010). Bodies of knowledge: Sexuality, reproduction, and women's health in the second wave. University of Chicago Press.
  18. ↑ Currier, Danielle M (July 2013). "Strategic Ambiguity: Protecting Emphasized Femininity and Hegemonic Masculinity in the Hookup Culture". Gender and Society. 27: 704–727 – via Sage Journals.
  19. ↑ Karkazis, Katrina; Jordan-Young, Rebecca; Davis, Georgiann; Camporesi, Silvia (July 2012). "Out of Bounds? A Critique of the New Policies on Hyperandrogenism in Elite Female Athletes". The American Journal of Bioethics. 12: 3–16 – via Taylor & Francis Online.
  20. ↑ "Surrogacy in Canada Online - Handbook" (PDF). Surrogacy in Canada Online. 2001. p. 4.
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 "Prohibitions Related to Surrogacy". Government of Canada. 2020.
  22. ↑ Hovav, April (2019). "Producing Moral Palatability in the Mexican Surrogacy Market". Gender & Society. Vol. 33, No. 2: 274 – via JSTOR.
  23. ↑ Hovav, April (2019). "Producing Moral Palatability in the Mexican Surrogacy Market". Gender & Society. 33, no. 2: 278 – via JSTOR.
  24. ↑ Chen, Jung (Feb 2024). "We are family: Taiwanese gay fathers' strategic normalisation decision-making in transnational reproduction". NORMA: 8.
  25. ↑ Dua, Enakshi (2007). "Exclusion through Inclusion: Female Asian migration in the making of Canada as a white settler nation". Gender, Place & Culture A Journal of Feminist Geography: 446.
  26. ↑ Deonandan, Raywat; Green, Samantha; van Beinum, Amanda (December 2012). "Ethical concerns for maternal surrogacy and reproductive tourism". Journal of Medical Ethics. Vol. 33, No.12: 1 – via JSTOR.
  27. ↑ Malek, Alloula (1986). Colonial Harum. University of Minnesota Press. p. 21.
  28. ↑ Hovav, April (2019). "PRODUCING MORAL PALATABILITY IN THE MEXICAN SURROGACY MARKET". Gender and Society. Vol. 33, No. 2: 276 – via JSTOR.
  29. ↑ Stoler, Ann L. (November 1989). "Making Empire Respectable: The Politics of Race and Sexual Morality in 20th-Century Colonial Cultures". American Ethnologist. Vol. 16, No. 4: 649 – via JSTOR.
  30. ↑ Chen, Jung (Feb 2023). "We are family: Taiwanese gay fathers' strategic normalisation decision-making in transnational reproduction". NORMA.
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 Ross, Loretta; Roberts, Lynn; Derkas, Erika; Peoples, Whitney; Pamela, Bridgewater, eds. (2017). Radical Reproductive Justice: Foundation, Theory, Practice, Critique. The Feminist Press. ISBN 9781558614376.
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 32.2 SisterSong (ed.). Reproductive Justice Briefing Book (PDF). SisterSong Women of Colour Reproductive Health Collective.
  33. ↑ Andaya, Elise; Cormer, Risa; Paxson, Heather; Sufrin, Carolyn (October 3, 2022). "After Roe: Introduction". Society for Cultural Anthropology. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 34.2 Price, Kimala (2010). "What is Reproductive Justice?: How Women of Color Activists Are Redefining the Pro-Choice Paradigm". Meridians: feminism, race, transnationalism. 10: 42–65.
  35. ↑ Kojima, Dai (2014). "Migrant Intimacies: Mobilites-in-Difference and Basue Tactics in Queer Asian Diasporas". Anthropologica. 56: 33–44.
  36. ↑ Bowen, Liz (October 3, 2022). "Dobbs Is a Disaster for Disability Justice". Society For Cultural Anthropology. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ANTH213/2024/topic/Reproduction&oldid=832137"