infertility and a changed heart
August 3, 2007 by thinking girl
For over a week now, I’ve been reading responses to this post, both on my blog and on other blogs and online forums. I wrote that post to try to gain a better understanding of why some people want biological children so badly that they would put themselves through the expense (financial, physical, and emotional) of fertility treatments. As a child-free woman who wishes to remain that way, who doesn’t really care for children so much anyway, and who is very critical of anything society deems ‘normal’ or ‘natural,’ my own perspective was preventing me from really understanding, and in fact had made me quite cold-hearted about. I realize and acknowledge that how I felt about the whole subject was entirely skewed and insensitive, and furthermore that it was entirely hypocritical considering that I am very sensitive and open-minded most of the time and am a feminist, and I wanted to open a dialogue that might help me better understand and become more sensitive and sympathetic. (or is it empathetic? I can never remember the difference between those words…)
I have gotten a flood of responses to that post, many from people who are or have experienced infertility. I want to say a huge thank you to everyone who has commented constructively, either here or elsewhere. Some people have completely misinterpreted the point of the post, or my intentions. Some have just been hurt and angry. To both, I can only say that I’m sorry you have been hurt or offended. My intentions were exactly as I stated them, and in no way was I trying to defend the views I expressed in the post. Better, isn’t it, to try to understand than to continue to hold views that are so callous and insensitive? I’m certainly not perfect, and I want to become better.
A couple of commenters suggested I write a post about how the comments I’ve received has helped to change my mind on some of my previously held opinions. Great idea. Here’s what I’ve learned:
I should begin by saying that I still don’t understand why it is that some people want to have biological children, or really, why they want to have children at all. I may never understand this, and I think that’s okay. It isn’t a rational thing we’re talking about, it’s an emotional one, so trying to find a rational explanation for it is kind of beside the point. Emotional reasons for anything should absolutely not be given less credence than rational ones. It’s simply, I think, a cognitive divide. So it turns out that I was making the mistake of valuing rationality over emotionality. I don’t think it’s necessary to understand why people want to have children to respect that they do. Many people don’t understand why I don’t want children, so it’s really no different.
Several people have pointed out to me that while infertility treatments are physically invasive, adoption procedures are also invasive. When you want to adopt, your life must be made completely transparent so that you will be approved by authorities to be suitable to parent. So for many couples and families, adoption is not an option, because the authorities (whoever they may be) would not approve them for adoption. And thus, having a biological child is the only way to go.
Oh, and for the record, as I clarified very early on in the comments, I don’t believe (and never did) that ONLY infertile couples should consider adoption. I think adoption should be considered by everyone who wants to have a family.
Never mind the cost of adoption. Fertility treatments are often less expensive than adoption. And of course, adoption is a complex and dynamic thing, and some people just don’t feel like they would be able to do it in a way that is best for the child, or for themselves and their family.
The question of whether fertility treatments should be covered by health plans was the one that got me thinking about this in the first place. I have completely changed my mind on this point; I now absolutely believe that they should be paid for. (perhaps there should be a limit as to how many rounds of treatment should be covered? like, say 6?) I’ve learned that when couples are paying out of pocket for fertility treatments, they take greater risks to maximize their chances of success, and those risks can result in health problems for both pregnant women, mothers, fetuses, and infants. It’s also more costly to deal with these problems than to pay for fertility treatments. Also, the cost of fertility treatments, while less expensive than adoption, makes it impossible for some couples who do not have the financial means to pay for it themselves, making fertility treatment a class issue.
And, as many people have pointed out, health insurance (whether public or private) pays for lots of things that are not necessary for survival. Why not fertility treatments? Who cares if it is necessary for survival - infertility is a medical condition that deserves to have treatment funded. While I don’t think there is a “right to have children,” I think we do have a right to medical treatment for medical conditions. I cannot at all explain why I didn’t think so before.
AND, since infertility is a very emotionally difficult condition that can affect mental health, it makes sense to treat it as completely as possible AS WELL AS providing psychological therapy to infertile couples to help them deal emotionally with the ups and downs of their efforts to have a family.
AND, I’ve also come to believe very much that adoption should also be funded more fully. If people want to have a family, they should be able to do so in whatever way they feel is best, and if adoption is too expensive, it only means that more children will go without solid and stable and loving homes. So, funding for fertility treatments: yes. Funding for adoption: yes.
Finally, I’ve learned more about male infertility. While I believe women’s bodies are over-medicalized and many specialists are too quick to place the burden of treatment on women’s bodies when their bodies are not the (only) source of the fertility difficulties, now I know that male infertility treatments can be just as invasive and difficult as those for women, and I completely take back my comment about watching porn and jerking off into a cup. Especial thanks to (In)Fertile Frank!
Not an excuse, but maybe a reason: I think my initial insensitivity toward infertility was a kind of backlash against the attitude I encounter so frequently that I am somehow abnormal, heartless, cold, unfeeling, selfish, etc. for not wanting or even really liking children. I’m so sick of hearing it. Not wanting children doesn’t make me a bad person, or uncaring, or whatever. It just means I know myself well enough to know that I would not be particularly happy or fulfilled as a parent. We all know people who had lousy parents. I would never want to be one of them.
So, in conclusion, while I still don’t understand why people want to have children (and maybe I never will), it’s not necessary to understand in order to respect those choices and how people go about making them. Pretty simple, really.
Thank you, again, to all those who took the time to tell me their stories, their thoughts, their opinions, their hopes, and for doing so in a way that actually softened my heart. I am extremely grateful. Best wishes to you all, and your families, however you choose to have them.
[...] UPDATE 2: Some commenters suggested I write a post about how your comments have impacted me and my thoughts about infertility. So I did. Read it here: infertility and a changed heart. [...]
Well done, all of it: your initial honesty, your invitation to others to educate you, your summary of their responses and your new outlook as written here. Excellent blogging. You’ve set a good example for me.
Wow, Thinking Girl,
This is great, we are all better when we hear other’s opinions and learn from them. Your blog has helped me change some of mine. Thanks for being frank and open like you’ve been.
Keep up the good work!
Thank you for such a thorough and thoughtful response. I appreciate that while you will never understand the desire to have children, you respect those who do have it. I don’t think you’re a horrible person for not wanting children, and I’m sorry for all the insensitive comments you’ll probably have to endure for the rest of your life. I got some of those prior to having my daughter when I didn’t want to share with strangers that I couldn’t “just relax” and have a baby. They acted as though I was selfish or abnormal for not having a child (not that I didn’t want one at the time), so I know how hurtful that can be to you. Your feelings on the subject are normal for YOU. Why can’t everyone appreciate that our emotions are uniquely ours and you cannot change someone’s feelings…as you said, it’s not rational. I’d much rather have someone like you who is honest with themselves, and decidesnot to have children, than someone who feels pressured to procreate when they feel that deep down inside it is not the right thing for them. Having a child is not to be taken lightly, and you seem to have given it more thought that the average person. Thank you.
I guess I’m glad that maybe some of the readers of this blog who were misinformed about infertility and adoption may now understand why some people choose the path to parenthood that they do…or choose the path to live child-free. Yes, I hate to admit that on our “quest to conception,” as one letter from an RE stated, we spent over $100,000. We did it over a period of many years because, while we wanted a child, we were not willing to put ourselves in debt to do so. We finally did donor egg and donor sperm and it costs a LOT. Many years before, I never thought we’d come to that decision, but like others have said, you just don’t know what you’ll do until you’re faced with that situation. Maybe that’s why I try so hard not to judge others for their decisions. I don’t have all the history and information as to how and why they came to their decision. I think many of the commenters gave you the ‘how and why’ so that you can see that there are many different reasons for things. You probably won’t ever truly ‘understand’ us, but that’s okay. You respect our decisions and I respect yours. I think you were very brave to even start the dialogue and I appreciate your honesty.
Firstly, I’d like to say that I was impressed by and admire your courage to publicly admit your views that you thought insensitive and callous, your attitude to listen to the opinions and experiences of the commenters, and the willingness to change your opinions. Also, thank you for all those who contributed to this very constructive discussion, from which I benefited a lot. I didn’t have a solid view on this issue before, but now I at least have some knowledge about the adoption process and come to believe that fertility treatment should be covered by health insurance.
I have a philosophical point about this debate I’d like to ask. This discussion reminded me of two concepts that were discussed in the your blog before; standpoint theory and false consciousness. I found your approach to this reflects Standpoint Theory; I understand that it is the reason why you say “I don’t think it’s necessary to understand why people want to have children to respect that they do.”, Am I right? Those who have different standpoints (those who haven’t undergone infertility treatments or those who haven’t had the strong urge to have biological children) can’t fully know, or understand, the feelings and reasons of those who want biological children and have infertility conditions, so we should just accept the views of those who have the relevant experiences who are in a epistemologically advantageous position. I still can’t support standpoint theory in its entirety, but I have a lot of respect for its sensitivity to people’s feelings.
However, those who believe in false consciousness would certainly think that social pressures and manipulation influence women who want to experience pregnancy and have her biological children, and these influences matter. It is not that I support this view, but I know some Marxist feminist who takes this stance. Indeed, you wrote, in your comment to the post about false consciousness, “my view of “choice” is more complex than simply that people do things because and only because they choose to. I think social constructs influence people sometimes to the point of coercion, and that things that seem like free choices sometimes are not because of a lack of options as they are presented by those social constructs. Hence, the post about false consciousness.” And also “women have the physical capability to have children, and the overwhelming social pressure to do so (which makes your use of the word “choice” a bit suspect in a post about false consciousness - not to say some women don’t autonomously choose to have children, but I certainly know a lot who think that having children is simply what women do)”. To me, it seems that false consciousness theory actually thinks it’s necessary to understand why people want to have children, (biological destiny or social construction?) and if the reason is social construction/false consciousness something must be done.
So do you still think it’s not necessary to understand the reasons (if it’s social construction of the Patriarchy or not) why people want to have children, despite your support for the false consciousness theory? And if so, why? I’m not trying to refute you or even arguing with you. It is just my simple question that arose from this discussion, and I may be creating a false dilemma because of my imperfect understanding of the theories, or completely off the rail in my understanding of either of the theories somewhere. If so I apologise in advance and please point it out.
Thank you for this!
I’m so glad you brought up the subject and was able to learn from it.
Bravissima! You have shown a rare bravery in the modern world. If only more people would try to empathize with others. I know I have problems with it - I would imagine everyone does.
Infertility is hard. So is examining our own preconceptions about things. I’m glad I discovered your blog. I plan to follow it whenever I can.
Pax,
MLO
Well said. Good for you.
A few notes:
1. In our experience, the porn at fertility clinics SUCKS. Trust me, the guys are not having any fun. None whatsoever. The pressure, the anxiety, the flimsy doors, the fact that everyone in the waiting room knows what you’re there for, eek, I’m just glad I’m not a guy. At least I get happy drugs via an IV before egg retrieval.
2.There are even more and better reasons for insurance. Currently, the lack of insurance lends itself to a sort of ‘wild west’ atmosphere in treatment. Standards of care and treatment are entirely voluntary. Not every clinic is top notch or all that ethical even, and there’s no reason for them to be. Some couples receive horrible medical care–I know, I ran a support group and I heard a lot of stories. Insurance coverage will help regulate costs and standardize treatment protocols(hopefully to everyone’s benefit).
Plus, coverage can prevent most multiples–not all, there’s always going to be some risk. I find the denial of coverage to be sexist and discriminatory. Infertility is perceived to be a ‘woman’s’ problem and therefore less worthy. I don’t see any guys crying they can’t get their Viagra.
M
liberallatte, i have been wondering about these exact same issues a lot after reading the comment thread here. my commented thoughts on drilling down into the nature of this “bio-drive” to have children were sort of lost in the fray, which is totally understandable, but i am still wondering about it, and how it factors into the understanding that child-free and people who have/want kids might eventually come to.
(i think TG and IVF Veteran are right in that true “understanding,” that is empathy, isn’t really possible in such a situation, but i mean more of whether there’s potential for a more harmonious co-existence between these two very different groups
)
thanks folks for your comments.
IVF Veteran - in Canada it is illegal to “sell” eggs or sperm. It’s seen as coercive - that perhaps people who need money would be willing to part ways with their eggs or sperm to make ends meet when otherwise they wouldn’t. And so, one can only “give” away one’s eggs or sperm here. That way it is seen as a truly “free” gift of generosity.
I was wondering what you thought about this practice. It seems to me that people still receive payment of some sort, in the form of “gifts” from the couple receiving their donation. But I read an article about surrogacy recently, and apparently in Canada, egg donation in particular is very rare (my guess is because it’s an invasive procedure). What do you think? should people be compensated for their egg or sperm donation? does that create an atmosphere of coercion?
LL, kate. d - thanks for your comments.
well, the thing about ‘false consciousness’ is that I don’t know if we will ever really know how deeply socialization and its pressures play a role in our decisions. For me, the benefit of the theory is to encourage us to be as aware of social pressures and possible… and go from there. I mean, just because there are social pressures on people to act a certain way, doesn’t mean that the only response is to reject that action, right? Society pressures us to be polite, for example - not a bad thing! The example I always turn to is femininity practices: I, despite being a feminist, conform to femininity quite successfully, and I am fully aware of the way others perceive me as a result of my displays of femininity, and I am fully aware of the pressures society has placed on me as a woman to conform. Yet, I still do it. Why? I don’t know. but I do. I would say that I like to, that I want to, that I enjoy being feminine in some ways. Also, I counter-balance that out by not behaving in traditionally feminine ways, such as always kowtowing to male pseudo-authority in a discussion, not bothering to make sure that men are well-cared for in my presence in terms of feeling masculine or nurtured or having their needs or desires come before mine, not responding to demands to explain myself, not simply lying down and letting a man “win” an argument about gender issues, and by speaking directly and clearly and standing my ground - just thinking of a recent experience I had. So, am I victim to false consciousness with regards to femininity practices? No, not even a bit. Yet I still conform to them.
I think that who false consciousness REALLY affects is the dominant class, because privilege is blinding and prevents a full understanding of the ways society is structured around power relations to benefit some and not others. Power relations are hidden from the powerful, not from the power-less, who experience them daily.
As for standpoint, yes indeed, it’s basically part of my framework now, so it was definitely the driving force behind this inquiry. Those who have experience infertility have an epistemic advantage in this discussion, by far, and my standpoint was creating a cognitive divide that I couldn’t get through without help from those who have the advantage.
so yes, I do think that “choice” is a very complex and loaded term that should be considered carefully and analyzed fully in the context it’s being used so as to avoid falling prey to false consciousness. But I also think it’s possible to make a choice within a framework of domination that is not necessarily the opposite of what the dominant class mandates. I think the KEY THING to have in order to make such a choice is an array of equally valid and available options. If one does something because it’s either conform to societal pressures or become a complete social outcast, for example, that’s not really a choice - it’s coercion. But if one does something because that’s what she wants to do out of several options that she has investigated well, then I’m not so concerned about it being coercive.
does that help? any other thoughts?
MLO - thank you. I’ll be glad to have you around!
DementedM - thanks for those additional notes - well put.
Aaron - thank you. it’s humbling to know that along my own path, I’ve been able to help another too.
Trish - thanks, and thanks for not being too hard on me in your own post linking me!
bianca bean - thank you. very kind of you to say.
Although happy to se this newest blog entry, I am surprised by how quickly you seem to have seen the other side of things.
I wanted to respond to the previous thread, but couldn’t calm myself down enough to do so. You wanted rational and intellectual responses, and the previous blag made me anything but.
I am sorry that anyone has made you feel like you are less than a woman, less than a human, for not wanting children. That is not the case. Child raising is not for everyone. If you know right now that it’s not for you, then good for you for not giving into the pressure and trying to prove yourself at the expense of an innocent child. I admire your stand and would NEVER judge anybody for that choice.
Perhaps that is why your, admittedly, insensitive attitude towards infertility and it’s resulting treatments threw me over the edge so. Most of the woman going through IF would not judge you for the choices you are making. They know all too weel just how difficult the road to motherhood is, and how personal all of our choices are. Granted, they may be a little envious of your , what can only be presumed, functioning fertility and would gladly trade you bodies in a heartbeat. But they know that standing back and smuggly critizing another woman for their desire (or lack of desire on your part) is just…wrong.
I, too, wondered what kind of true feminist you could really be with that attitude. By so harshly critizing these woman who choose to continue with ART, you are in essence stifling the very soul of feminism. Saying that women with IF should adopt and that trying anything ART related is “selfish” is as bad as our mothers being told that they couldn’t be very good mothers if they worked outside the home, or telling our reat grandmothers that they weren’t smart enough to vote.
You can’t dictate what people can do based on your own small set of values. It goes agazinst everything you profess to hold dear.
I would love to be a stay at home mom. I really would. But finances dictate that I put my college degree to work and make money for my family. Yes, I have a degree, and Yes, I would gladly give up the hospital setting for several years to raise my children. Does that make me less of a woman? Less of a feminst? (Not that I claim that title too often, I’m more of a *walk-the-walk* kind of woman).
Speaking of SAHMs, do you think that they are somehow selfish for not entering the workplace and becoming productive members of society? I know it’s not really a relevant topic, I just wondered if your previous thoughts spilled over into all areas of motherhood v. womanhood.
I admire those women who stay at home and raise children. It’s a very hard job. It’s not easy.
I admire the women who choose to focus on their careers and not have children. It’s not easy.
I have choosen to do both. Trust me, it’s not easy.
I only have one other comment to make regarding adoption. It is a truly wonderful thing. That a woman would care enough to carry her baby to term, and then know enough to realize that she couldn’t provide for that child the way she wanted to is the most selfless act I have ever witnessed. We have adopted children in our family. I assure you there is no difference between biological and adopted children. None. You can’t tell me I’d love those kids more if they shared my DNA.
But getting them wasn’t easy. Adopting a child rarely is. But it is worth it. And I’m glad to see that you’ve come to see that the hardship involved is just as expensive and draining as fertility treatments. As a good friend of mine recently said…”It’s not like adopting a dog from the shelter!!”.
I hope only the best for you in your journey. And if the day ever comes when you change your mind about having children, then I hope that comes easily for you as well. This is one side of the fence you don’t ever want to be on.
It seems like everyone’s said everything I would have had to say (well, with the exception of having any experience with infertility) but I think I want to comment, or work out a little about the tensions between standpoint theory and false consciousness, as I do not think that they operate completely independent of each other, and I think your concerns about having children reflect that.
Especially if we view standpoint theory as part of the employment of empathy, an important tool of feminism in a global environment. I think using a standpoint framework can actually inform and identify false consciousnesses. If we can understand where someone else is coming from, then we can perhaps understand the system in which they are socialized and discover what relevant cultural factors frame their lives, which ones are positive and which ones are negative and discover for our selves how our own (or anyone else’s) social intervention affects people. As well, listening and learning from one other’s standpoint, isn’t it then possible to jump from there and take away the blinders from one’s own false consciousness? If we see what is happening to others, then isn’t it possible that we can extrapolate from that and reflect upon ourselves?
If I recognize my own standpoint, I hope too that I am able to recognize my own false conscious, and the ways in which my social privileges (ie a white, educated woman in a big city) both help me and blind me.
I don’t know, I may just be rambling, but I’ve never actually seen the two theories as separate from each other, but rather part of an overlapping range of ideas that pertain to a complex feminist analysis.
Okay, I think I’ve let it all spew out over your wonderful blog. It has been so nice to find this site. Thank you!
TG, very interesting thoughts. i don’t know much about standpoint theory per se, but think that - beyond any sort of system of ordering ethics and/or perspectives - it certainly has value in striving to be a more sympathetic/empathetic person. on a base human kindness level, we could all use more of that and be more of that, myself included.
the idea of false consciousness really twists me up, because on the one hand it encapsulates what drives me crazy about “choice” feminism or any of the “i did it cuz i wanted to and don’t you dare judge me!!” defenses, but on the other hand, just the term itself smacks of condescension.
so, in that light, how can we go about trying to broaden the discussion and encourage “critical consciousness” (a term i LOVE, btw) about a lot of things society holds dear without coming off as patronizing and/or sanctimonious? because (as the previous comment thread amply showed) it’s hard to be even somewhat critical of someone’s choices without them taking it as your being critical of them, full stop. because when “choice” is posited as the be-all-and-end-all of feminism (or even liberalism) as it has in recent years, regardless of whether or not people’s actual options are broadened in the process, it becomes a situation where your “choices,” not your circumstances or anything else, define who you are.
and in that case, if your choices equal you, well then of course you’re gonna take it personally.
You are very brave to have taken this on.
In 1980 I had my tubes tied. To this day, people are often wordless if not downright shocked. Many of the same people who encouraged me to take on the world still thought I should do so while being very capable of getting pregnant. It was almost like I was no longer a whole woman. It still stops conversation, even though I have never, ever said that I think others should consider it or that I disliked chidren. Yet people go there.
Like you, I got tired of this function crammed down my throat.
Still, to take it on like you have is SO brave! And your writing here is very sensitive. What a great blog.
Glad to see the change of heart. And while I definitely am someone who wants biological children (with one already and one more on the way), I also understand why you wouldn’t want any. What I don’t understand is why anyone would hold that against you. It just seems rather silly - I’ve always thought the problem was people having children that don’t want them or can’t take care of them. Choosing not to have any children, well, why should that be a problem? It sort of seems like people like to stick their nose in other people’s business rather than live and let live. Live and let live is the libertarian way.
So I think it is great that you don’t want kids and so won’t have any. And I’d think it was equally great if you wanted kids and had kids. Because either way, you are living your life the way you want to without anyone telling you what to do or what you should do or trying to guilt you into doing. Your choice is your choice. My choice is my choice. Isn’t it great we both can make our own choices?
This topic has turned out to be a really successful discussion. By successful I mean it appears to have created a new level of understanding and acceptance.
I was one of the readers who had a hard time with the original thread and not because I’ve experienced infertility but because I felt that my decision to create a couple of new people was not seen as valid or worthwhile.
The other reason was that I was quite moved by some women’s personal accounts of their struggle to conceive their own children. I have a natural tendency to advocate. It’s part of my line of work to speak for and empower people whose voices often otherwise go unheard. So I guess, looking back now, that’s why I reacted to some of the posts the way I did. Within the context of this particular thread I perceived there was a group whose needs and wants or rights were not being heard or respected. A bit of a Femsoc to the rescue kind of situation.
And I apologise, TG, if I seemed to be trying to give you a hard time over it because I really do enjoy this blog.
Someone above mentioned SAHMs so I’ll just add my thoughts on that subject too.
I think in the past, SAHMs got a bit of a rough deal from feminist groups and spokespersons. Because the patriarchal capitalist system had forced the job of child care onto women for so long, when we eventually reached a point where we had more choices, it was assumed that we would all automatically reject that role. Presumably because it symbolised our long struggle with oppression.
So unfortunately, child-raising and it’s importance to society was an innocent casualty, caught in the cross-fire of the gender warfare of the 1970s. Women were often ashamed to say they were at home raising children. They were often seen by feminists to be “letting the team down”. It was not seen as a valid contribution to society because no monetary value was placed on such work, and as we know, the patriarchal capitalist system values profit over people.
The couple of years that I spent at home with small children were extremely rewarding and in hindsight I view that work (yes, it’s work!) as having very positive far-reaching and immeasurable effects on the people that my children have grown into.
What I was doing was helping to raise the next generation of the workforce for the capitalist system to exploit, and I was doing it all for free and still am.
I can’t remember where I was going with this now but just to sum up, I’d like to see feminists supporting all women’s parenting choices regardless of what they are because they are all relevent to our cause.
Thank you for this post.
Nice work, TG. Often the blogosphere seems shaped by a desire to prove one’s own knowledge, rather than sharing uncertainty and developing shared spaces for thinking and rethinking.
In that vein, I kinda wanted to contribute to thinking about ‘false consciousness’. I know nothing about standpoint theory (there you go, sharing my ignorance) but the implication of the name itself seems interesting. But to ‘false consciousness’. The problem I see with false consciousness is that it implies its opposite: that there is, somewhere, ‘true’ consciousness, a way of thinking and being that actually engages with the truth. That’s why I agree with kate.d. that it tends to be really condescending, and I have to say that the feminist movement has had its moments of doing precisely this. ‘You might *think* you really want to wear lipstick/have kids/have penetrative sex with a man/whatever else, but *we* know better, because *we* have escaped the false consciousness in which you are trapped and are fully rational beings.’ Honestly, such a position disgusts me on a whole range of grounds. Quite aside from anything else, I am deeply distrustful of any position which presumes that it is, somehow, ‘outside’ power, and knows better than those it has assumed are trapped by it. I’m enough of a Foucauldian to think that there is no ‘outside’ to power, and that that is something of an enabling position, rather than a ‘well, I give up’ one. In this respect, I’m totally on board with the ‘critical consciousness’ idea kate.d. raised, though as I’m about to point out, even that might be a bit too simply cognitive for my tastes.
This has something to do with a point I almost raised as a comment on in your original post, and that is the position of the ‘rational’ in these kinds of discussions. Now from the get-go, my position is informed by poststructuralism and specifically corporeal feminism. That which is rational is consistently valued in our culture, and not only that, it’s strongly associated with the mind (implicitly and often explicitly designated as superior to the body, and the site of true freedom). But it’s not so simple. The rational isn’t some universal, ahistorical way of thinking; it’s culturally specific and more than this, it’s strongly patriarchal. I keep referring to this book online, but it’s really great: Genevieve Lloyd’s ‘Man of Reason’ demonstrates that rationality is less something that men have had privileged access to than a set of ways of thinking and justifying positions which are privileged because they have been associated with men. So in the end I was kinda glad to see your change of heart included an acknowledgement that things matter and *should* matter beyond the ways that we can rationalise them, because all too often women’s desires have been dismissed as ‘irrational’ or ‘emotional’, and such dismissals have bolstered masculine claims to rationality and rational desires.
Ugh, sorry, I’ve gone on and on and still not been very clear. I guess my basic point is that we need to be careful of the ways that ideas of the ‘rational’ (and connected to that, ‘false consciousness’
are regularly deployed along sex and sex-based lines in order to devalue and delegitimate women, their desires, and their practices (acknowledging, of course, that women are an extremely heterogeneous bunch!).
thank you everyone.
shelbel - maybe my change of heart came quickly because I was open to it. I think that is what so many people misunderstood about the original post; I wasn’t trying to defend how I felt about infertility and specifically its treatments, I was trying to rid myself of that.
as for the concept of ‘true feminist’, well, I don’t play by that book. I’m not going to question anyone’s self-defined feminism. Does how I felt about infertility negate every other feminist view I hold? I don’t think so. There’s no strict set of criteria to define who is or is not a feminist.
nevertheless, I did recognize that I was being hypocritical, and wanted to stop.
As for SAHM, I believe the very real and difficult work they do is completely undervalued in society, largely because we live under capitalism and the only labour that seems to matter is the paid kind. I wish there was a way to pay SAHMs for the work they do. for more of my views on this topic, read this post, and don’t forget the comments!
the one thing I don’t like about SAHM is how coercive our society is in pushing women into that role. Even from an economic perspective: if two (hetero) parents had the same job, and decided one of them would stay home to raise a family, more than likely it will be the woman who does because women are paid less than men for the same work. why? because it is expected that women will leave their job for a period of time in order to have and raise children, making them ‘less productive’ workers to the employer than men. and this infuriates me!
My mom was a SAHM. She was never happy in this role - and still isn’t, I think, even though she is no longer raising a child int he home. But, this was what she felt was her role in society, in her family, as a woman. her revenge was to be lousy at it. If only she had felt it was possible to live a different kind of life….
you said: “I hope only the best for you in your journey.”
likewise, my dear!
eva - I asked about having a tubal when I was younger. I was refused, because I wasn’t “old enough” and was unmarried. So MY decision not to have children was negated by a husband I didn’t - and still don’t, and probably never will - have! Because HIS desire TO HAVE children would obviously be given priority, and I would be expected to submit my body to his will - if not my career and future child-free plans. Nice, eh?
DBB - yes, it is great we can both make our own choices. too bad mine aren’t respected by society as a whole as much as yours are. that’s the thing about libertarianism (without, please dear god, opening that particular can of worms again right now!) - it doesn’t recognize power relations as the driving force in our societies.
perhaps it would be useful in a post-oppression world. I don’t think we’re anywhere near that, though.
FemSoc - thank you.
yes, indeed, I also resent the anti-SAHM condescension that was very much a part of feminism earlier on. Like I said above, just because we recognize societal pressures in our lives, doesn’t mean the that only valid response is to reject those influences and do the opposite. Feminism isn’t about making women into men.
the old fem position on SAHMs was too much informed by capitalism. that was the problem. Me, I’m a socialist.
I agree with what my best friend Angel wrote on the other thread - that raising children could be a revolutionary act, if done with a social consciousness in hand.
have you ever read dark daughta’s blog? I highly encourage it. she is doing exactly what Angel was talking about.
christine - thank you, and thanks for your contribution to this discussion. I really appreciate it.
kate d., electric furr, WildlyParenthetical - thanks for the false consciousness/standpoint theory/critical consciousness discussion! I likey!
yes, electric furr, I agree - standpoint and false consciousness aren’t so far apart, are they? good catch there, very excellent. Especially this:
very nice. exactly.
I’m not sure how to go about what you’re asking, kate. I think there is a danger, as WP discusses, of coming across as patronizing and condescending when we ask such questions about people’s choices. Questioning the autonomy of another does seem to imply that our own autonomy is fully intact, when it’s not necessarily so. I guess what we could perhaps ask is not “Was that decision truly yours or were you simply influenced by society?” but “what were the other options available to you? do those options carry equal value/validity? is it possible to choose otherwise and still be respected in the same way, or as much?”
WP, I think you understand more about standpoint theory than you think you do. for example, the greater valuing of ways of thinking traditionally associated with men is invalid, because male perspectives are only partial perspectives and do not tell the entire story. I’ll put up a post about standpoint theory very soon. I have a million pages of notes on it, it’s what I’m writing my thesis about.
Thinking Girl, thanks for this discussion. I haven’t participated in it because I didn’t think I had anything to add, but I have been following it and learning a lot, both about your point of view and about infertility.
Well done. I really respect you for putting yourself out there and really LISTENING to the responses.
TG, i don’t know either
i like your idea about maybe being able to broaden the discussion not by talking about people’s particular choices per se, but by opening up the topic of what other choices/options were available, and what the wealth/lack of options says about the society in which we live. probably still tricky and not necessarily possible in every conversational context, but something to keep in mind!
along the lines of WP’s great point about it being impossible to be “outside” of power, i am trying to be better about reminding myself that women everywhere do what they have to do to survive (and hopefully thrive, to the extent that they can) within patriarchy. decisions are made for a reason, and usually - in the context of survival - a good reason. that’s not to say that all traditional choices are made under some sort of explicit duress, or that countercultural ones are either - just that ultimately, we are all simply reacting as best we can to the reality in which we find ourselves.
I totally agree, kate.d. and I think approaching issues with the ‘there’s no outside, not for you, the SAHM, nor for me, the crazy feminist!’ perspective helps to avoid moralising which really is a bit of a dead end! My only concern about the ‘let’s open up a discussion about what options we have/had’ is that it seems to suggest that, well, I’m going to be crude, just to make my point: “well, I talked about it, I thought about it and in the end it was just the best decision for me.” (Implicit: “I’m innocent coz I thought about it, so leave me alone!”
This seems to suggest that so long as I’ve been rational/found ways to justify my position in ways that others respect (or even not, given the primacy of the individual in the current context), this makes it all a-OK. Actually, to be honest, I think that those kinds of discussion often wind up being fairly normative, unfortunately: that is, while TG might have the resources to be able to argue/justify her ‘no kids’ position to folks here who are willing to be thoughtful and hear others, not all women (who don’t want kids) will be able to do this; and this, I think, points back to the question of the role of rationality here. Besides, I tend to think that the rational justification is post-hoc and an attempt to cover over our very… embodied investments! But again, corporeal feminist; I would think that! 
The problem I have with these kinds of justifications is that they often function as a way of claiming innocence, an innocence that not all are capable of claiming: often (though not always) justification is just an attempt to disavow the political and ethical effects of what you do, your responsibility for them, and that’s a problem. (I think that part of the reason for this again is the radical individualism we live with). But also I think that that’s the result of how we tend to configure all decisions as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, as ‘rational’ or ‘irrational’, as ‘justified’ or ‘unjustified’; complexity’s not much in favour. Unfortunately, the good, rational and justifiable decisions tend to be the already-privileged ones; therein, I think, lies the problem.
I think that part of the difficulty that would need to be negotiated is knowing that just because someone can’t offer a (rational) justification for their desire, that doesn’t make it wrong; but nor does the ability to offer such a justification make a decision right. Okay, I’ll admit right here that I can’t adhere to a traditional, principle-based ethics, precisely because I think that people really and truly are different from each other, with different desires, different frameworks for justification etc; and principle-based ethics tends to squash our ability to respond to that. I’ve got my Levinasian tendencies in this regard. But again, I’ve blabbed like nobody’s business. Sowwi!
Thanks for the informative and positive discussion everyone. I agree that false consciousness can be incredibly condescending, sanctimonious, elitist and authoritarian. Not only that it can be offensive to people who they criticise as victims of false consciousness, the concept was abused by Leninist/Stalinist streak of Marxists and is indeed very prone to abuse by atrocious regimes in that way. I absolutely prefer the concept of “critical consciousness”; I understand that the main difference between critical consciousness and false consciousness is that the focus of critical consciousness is on how to combat oppressions and negative social constructions (recognising no one is free from false consciousness and her/his own standpoint; thanks electric furr for showing that the two concepts don’t have to contradict), rather than the disapproving tone of “false consciousness” that can be taken as dismissal of the feelings and emotions of those who are affected by “false consciousness”. As Kate said, “it’s hard to be even somewhat critical of someone’s choices without them taking it as your being critical of them”.
But also, I believe that it is not productive to entirely dismiss the notion of false consciousness (as part of critical consciousness). It is meaningful to discuss as to what extent the choices made are affected by false consciousness/social construction, even though, as TG said, it is hard to know “how deeply socialization and its pressures play a role in our decisions”. Some choices can make someone “a complete social outcast” in certain circumstances, and some social pressures can indeed be bad (btw I think these days the capitalist society/the Media pressures us to be greedy and rude rather than to be polite!). Attempts to understand the effects of false consciousness on people’s choices enable us to gain deeper understanding of the system of Patriarchal social pressure, which is necessary for our struggle. And though I agree that privilege is blinding, I don’t think the oppressed are free from false consciousness, mostly because of the domination of the Public Media Sphere by the privileged, which is phenomenally powerful in the modern era. TG, you say that you conform to femininity but you are not a victim to false consciousness, because you are aware of those pressures and when you choose to conform to femininity you are aware of the pressures, therefore, it is your own informed choice to conform; So if someone, who isn’t an active feminist and isn’t aware of societal pressure at all, makes decisions to conform to the Patriarchy, isn’t she/he deeply affected by “false consciousness”? I have no intention to condemn them, but I just think that it is desirable that if more people are informed about societal pressures/constructions, and be able to make a choice (as to conform or not) truly autonomously by herself/himself, uninformed, pressured choice to conform that can strengthen the oppressive structure should be discouraged.
Also, in regards to Rationality, WP, could you please articulate why “the good, rational and justifiable decisions tend to be the already-privileged ones”? I believe in Reason, I don’t mean to say emotion is unimportant, but emotion should be encompassed within the wider framework of reason. I don’t think Reason essentially has an oppressive quality; we can use Reason to justify our point that emotion, as the ultimate End, matters, and it is unjust that the oppressed suffers emotionally. Or do I value reason because I am male, and I can’t see the female standpoint? This male=reason, female=emotion dichotomy smells like archaic essentialism. Also, I think collectivism tends to reinforce the Patriarchal power of the privileged over the oppressed, but I’ll stop around here before my rambling strays from the original topic further away…
Of course, LL. I don’t mean, by any means that those decisions *are* simply ‘good, rational and justifiable,’ but that a decision to have children, for example, is usually understood (that is, under current mainstream conditions) as good, rational and justified, whilst the decision not to isn’t. So the patterns of privilege inform what kinds of decisions get called ‘good, rational and justifiable.’ Clearer? I hope so.
I tend to stay away from things with capital letters, mostly because I’m not sure why they take up the privilege they do. Nonetheless, in the end, my point doesn’t have to contradict yours about Reason including emotion; but that’s a fairly idiosyncratic position (not bad at all, just not what I’d usually call the hegemonic approach, which is what I’m trying to sketch and challenge here.) And I’m not trying to replicate essentialism, but to demonstrate that the (perhaps archaic but actually still very present) essentialist association of men with rationality and women with emotion informs much of what gets considered rational (and thus valuable) and what gets considered emotional (and thus not). In a sense, your description of ‘Reason’ might offer a way into deconstructing this position; my point was simply that because rationality had historically been associated with men, this means that rationality is far from a neutral thing; and so the ‘rational’ decision may not be a neutral as may first appear. So, to suggest (not that you are, I’m straw-person-ing for the purposes of clarity) that ‘women are just as rational as men’ without considering the (masculine) history of rationality risks replicating the whole mess all over again: women’s experience is devalued all over again, this time not (apparently) because it’s *women’s* but because it’s not ‘rational’. Is this clearer?
And just to hint towards it before I disappear in a cloud of shame over my comment-jacking, my concerns about individualism (which I’m not convinced that ‘collectivism’ is necessarily the counter to, but I’d need to think more about that term because it’s not quite the lingo I tend to use) is that our model of individualist subjectivity tends to entrench (and, more problematically, conceal) the functionings of power. I’m enough of a Foucauldian to think that power isn’t *only* oppressive (but productive as well), but individualism (esp. of the liberal humanist brand), I think, tends to disavow that we are all products of the culture in which we live, and that we are all fundamentally bound up together in and through that culture. Okay; that’s vague enough to be badly misunderstood, but I feel bad nicking this thread! Feel free to use the contact form at mine if you’re wanting to follow this up at greater length, LL, I’d love to keep up the discussion. Sorry TG [fades away in embarrassment]
P.S. Oh, wait, one last thing. Not that I’m wanting to detract from TG’s self-reflexive performance of femininity at all (not least coz, uh, me too!), I *do* wonder how much this rescue from ‘false’ consciousness’ is dependent upon the *intentions* of the person involved. And I wonder, then, why intention defines the act so dramatically. In the end, I’m not sure how much being aware that a desire for performing femininity is socially constructed changes the performance. But then, I don’t think that social construction is like a ‘top layer’ that needs to be ’scraped away’ to reveal a truth/individuality. That might be the difference here?
wow, i think i need to read all this one or two more times before having any real coherent/cogent thoughts on it - this is really interesting stuff!
often (though not always) justification is just an attempt to disavow the political and ethical effects of what you do, your responsibility for them, and that’s a problem.
WP, this is a good point. that’s why “choice” feminism, as an organizing principle, pains me so. every time someone says, “feminism is supposed to be about choice!” i think a little piece of me dies inside
In the end, I’m not sure how much being aware that a desire for performing femininity is socially constructed changes the performance.
right. this gets at the broader problem - which it seems we’re all haphazardly expounding upon here - of what we ultimately do (or are even capable of doing ) with “consciousness,” false, critical, or any other kind!
I have more to say, but briefly, this jumped out at me, too:
“In the end, I’m not sure how much being aware that a desire for performing femininity is socially constructed changes the performance.”
I agree - the actual performance of femininity per se doesn’t change. But I kind of see it as not my problem anymore, once I’ve analysed it critically. It’s not really got anything to do with femininity itself, but has everything to do with how it is interpreted by society. So, it becomes other peoples’ problem, not mine!
Yeah, I think this is where my issue with individualism becomes really strong. Please please please, TG (and others!), don’t take this as an attack (and I’m sorry for the paranoia, I just know these issues go deep, and we’re pretty fully invested in them!).
See, I think that *knowing* that other people are going to ’see’ that performance of femininity as a repetition and *affirmation* of it changes, or should change, how we think of it. That is, I don’t think that my performance of femininity *doesn’t* have effects for other people. It does. It functions as an affirmation of femininity, albeit an implicit one; it means that the generalised social space of embodied performance we all live in is at least partially shaped by one more performance of femininity. We know that women police each other, but we also know that women compare themselves to each other and police themselves; and I do think that performing femininity *knowing that* means we have to take some kind of responsibility for it. I think that the refusal to take responsibility for how my performance affects others is precisely the kinds of responsibility I’m saying that individualism allows us to vacate. I guess, in the end, I’m saying that the fact that it’s ‘other peoples’ problem’ refuses to accept that we might actually all be bound up together here; that my way of being might have effects for others (and them for me).
It might be useful to look at the counter: a woman who doesn’t perform femininity after the ‘hegemonic’ fashion changes the social space. People interact differently with her, and often are challenged in their own femininity/masculinity by her (which often leads, horribly but unsurprisingly) to a violent response. She demonstrates the possibility of doing femininity otherwise, offering a counter to the endless repetition of traditional kinds and opening up *for others* the space of critical engagement with femininity. So people *are*, I think, bound up with each other, and to pretend that other people’s problems shouldn’t be important to me… [grin] well, I start to wonder what happened to the sisterhood cry. (I’m teasing, promise!) NB I’m not saying all femmey girls out there should be apologising for being femmey (responsibility, interestingly, slips all to easily into a kind of catholic guilt, which is totally crappy and besides everything else, unhelpful); but I think it’s important to own the ways that we affirm traditional models of femininity even if not for ourselves (because ‘we’re critical’
then for others. My intention isn’t necessarily visible.
And kate.d., the point about ‘choice’ feminism is interesting, I think. I tend to head for slightly grumpy when people say, ‘but it’s my choice, I should be able to do what I want, doesn’t feminism mean that?’. The kind of social constructionism that I work with assumes both that the ways that we’re produced as subjects both allows us the ability to ‘choose’ and circumscribes what things ‘choice’ adheres to and what that means - why it becomes possible to choose some things and not others. In this respect, then, it’s fascinating and telling that girls can choose to be ‘Girls Gone Wild’ and that’s supposed to be straightforwardly fine, but choosing to… well, perform a butchy femininity isn’t. Or, better, the ‘choice’ to terminate a fetus that’s been prenatally genetically diagnosed with a disability of some kind is interesting in this regard: it’s termed a choice, and an important one, by lots of people. But studies show (!) that medical staff put extraordinary amounts of pressure on women to terminate these fetuses. In the end, the situation is practically that women who agree to the PGD test don’t realise it, but are often effectively agreeing to termination in the case of a diagnosis, simply because there’s so much pressure. There’s a post up over at mine called ‘eugenics or choice’ which tries to tackle this issue, if a little sideways. But again, I’ve waxed long, and so I shall cease! I’m sorry if I’ve been the kink in the railroad of this thread!
See, I think that *knowing* that other people are going to ’see’ that performance of femininity as a repetition and *affirmation* of it changes, or should change, how we think of it…It functions as an affirmation of femininity, albeit an implicit one; it means that the generalised social space of embodied performance we all live in is at least partially shaped by one more performance of femininity.
replace the word “feminity” with “marriage,” and you’ve got the issue i agonize over like every day, and twice on sundays. i am really torn and confused about whether or not i can reconcile marriage for myself with my desire to see broad-based societal change. but that would really hijack this thread, so i won’t go there
and WP, i for one don’t think you’re a kink, i find all this really relevant (though we’re using performative femininity as an example, we could - as evidenced just above - be talking about any “choice” we make in a societal context and how/if it’s possible to address it, dialogue about it.
good stuff! ok, now back to work.
Thanks TG, both for your honesty and commitment to listen. Though this is kind of a tangent of the comment thread, I too think SAHMs (and dads) should be paid for the work that they do. But then again, in general I wish we were just taxed a whole lot more in order to better redistribute wealth and appreciate work.
To quickly tell my story: I am not infertile, but my husband is because when he was 17 he was diagnosed with the worst form of leukemia and he was chemoed and irradiated (and eventually given a bone marrow transplant) like crazy. We are now over eight weeks pregnant after getting pregnant on the first try using IVF. I had a lot of success building relationships with my nurses and doctor and managed to completely control my experience. My hyperstimulation drugs were 1/3 of the normal dose, and I only had one embryo transferred back into me. I decided I would rather be in control of the process, do it as naturally as possible, and risk it not working, then take every harsh drug and hormone my doctor offered without considering the consequences. If this didn’t work with whatever embryos we got from this one hyperstimulation cycle, the plan was to pursue open adoption of a US child (being USers ourselves).
In a way, I think that because I had decided doing it in a way I felt was least invasive and felt most “right” to me was probably why it worked on the first try.
The reason I share my story and thinking is that, while I did pursue and had success with infertility treatments, I do feel that there are lots of other babies I will also love in my life and will have lots of them in my life, and still may adopt one later in my life (though I will never pursue international adoption, but that really is a whole other conversation). The reason I’m flexible about this, and not troubled either by people who don’t want children, who want biological children, or who want to adopt is not because of “choice feminism” (which makes me just as queasy as it makes kate.d.). Rather, I believe we all try to make the most rational decisions we can in the context of our lives (I actually think we SHOULD value rational decisions over emotional ones, but think we disagree slightly about what constitute rational and emotional decisions). Whether all of us are actually making the best decisions is not necessarily a useful question, because I’d rather have all women (all humans, really) trust their thinking (provided they continue to seek out information to check their thinking).
I’ll try to just end here: what I’m trying to say is not live and let live, but appreciate and seek to understand the different contexts that lead to different decisions. Maybe over time, as we try to provide each other with better pictures of reality, we will all start to come to similar conclusions about what is right and wrong when it comes having — or not having — children.
I think these two blogs were great for people to read. At first I was shocked about your first article and upset. I’m 24 and my husband and I are going through the process of adopting our 10 year old son. It’s been going on for 3 years and has been extremely hard emotionally and financially for both my husband and I and our son, but it’s something I’d do again for him. We are an infertile couple and we want more children our next step is treatment processes to help and it’s not that we want “molds” of ourselves it’s that family and love to give are so important to us. We would adopt lots more kids if we thought it would be possible but from a wanting to protect my son stand point it wouldn’t be fair, he has already been through so much. And if the treatments don’t work (we’ve given ourselves a timeline for financial reasons) I’m ok with that. Thank you for opening up you thoughts to include others.
I’m coming into this really late, but I just wanted to say kudos to you for tackling this very controversial topic, and for being open minded enough to fully consider (as best you can) both sides in order to reevaluate your position. And I’d of course like to thank all of my fellow infertility bloggers for putting forward the other side of the argument in (for the most part) a respectful and informative manner.
Beautiful. And I’m so sorry for the insensitivity you face simply because you choose to not have children. It may seem weird, but I completely understand that urge to lash out because of such feelings. The insensitivity that I have encountered toward infertility has often made me feel the same way. I feel a bit marginalized at times.
Kudos, and I left a health comment on the original post.