IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v56y2003i9p1881-1891.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unhappy endings: a feminist reappraisal of the women's health movement from the vantage of pregnancy loss

Author

Listed:
  • Layne, Linda L.

Abstract

This essay contrasts the rosy birth scenarios of the natural childbirth movement with reproductive disaster stories of members of pregnancy loss support groups and women from toxically assaulted communities in the US who have suffered pregnancy loss. I argue that both biomedical obstetrics and the women's health movement critique of it share a belief in the ability to control reproduction so that there will be a positive outcome. I show that this emphasis on happy endings (whether believed to be the result of medical intervention, or women's natural inborn powers to reproduce) exacerbates the experience of those whose pregnancies do not end happily. I show how the women's health movement's emphasis on the importance of women being in control of their own bodies is related to a broader "culture of meritocracy" which contributes to maternal blame (and self-blame) when pregnancies are not perfect.

Suggested Citation

  • Layne, Linda L., 2003. "Unhappy endings: a feminist reappraisal of the women's health movement from the vantage of pregnancy loss," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(9), pages 1881-1891, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:9:p:1881-1891
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(02)00211-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. van der Sijpt, Erica, 2010. "Marginal matters: Pregnancy loss as a social event," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(10), pages 1773-1779, November.
    2. repec:eee:socmed:v:184:y:2017:i:c:p:75-83 is not listed on IDEAS

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:9:p:1881-1891. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.