Advertisement

Introduction: Family in Crisis—The Rise of Surrogacy and Its Impact on Popular Culture

  • Lulu Le Vay
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Science and Popular Culture book series (PSSPC)

Abstract

This introductory chapter explores the importance of TV on popular culture in relation to evolving media platforms, consumer practices and its interaction with modern politics—in specific relation to how normative ideologies of family and motherhood are being continually perpetuated. Here, it is made clear that this book sets out to show that such recycling of norms through TV storylines are an anxious response to increasing infertility and alternative family structures enabled through reproductive technologies. Also mentioned here is why this project focusses on the reception rather than the production of the texts. The author will give an overview of the methods used (textual analysis and audience work) why they have been used in relation to the analytical methods (queer theory, genre analysis), and how the combination of these methods and analytical approaches offer a unique feminist perspective for TV studies, specifically in the exploration of how ideologies of motherhood, normative family and sexuality are articulated through these contemporary and popular TV storylines. In addition, this foundational chapter also explores how nineteenth-century notions of family and motherhood resurface through the narratives of these modern TV shows. The author will argue here the importance of exposing what these texts ‘speak’ about the historical and political context of the time. The focus here will be on the reproductive politics in America and Australia, in relation to the texts under analysis. As a lead into the analytical chapters, the author will set out an overview of the texts that have selected for analysis. Here it will be made clear that both The Handmaid’s Tale and Top of the Lake: China Girl are shows that came out after the ethnographic research had been completed and explain why it was decided drama as a genre category was omitted for analysis. These two texts will be explored fully in Chapter  6, in the context of the core of the themes that have emerged through the research.

References

  1. Ahmed, Sara. 2004. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Ahmed, Sara. 2010. The Promise of Happiness. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Akass, Kim, and Janet McCabe, J. 2006. Reading the “L Word”. London: Tauris.Google Scholar
  4. Ang, Ien. 1985. Watching Dallas: Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination. New ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Ang, Ien. 1991. Desperately Seeking the Audience. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Ang, Ien. 1995. Living Room Wars. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Aslama, Minna, and Mervi Pantti. 2006. “Talking Alone: Reality TV, Emotions and Authenticity.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 9 (2): 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Atwood, Margaret. 1985. The Handmaid’s Tale. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  9. Baby Mama. 2008. Directed and written by Michael McCullers. Film. Universal City, CA: Universal Pictures.Google Scholar
  10. Baraitser, Lisa, and Imogen Tyler. 2010. “Talking of Mothers.” Soundings: A Journal of Politics and Culture 44 (1): 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baraitser, Lisa, and Imogen Tyler. 2013. “Private View, Public Birth: Making Feminist Sense of the New Visual Culture of Childbirth.” Studies in the Maternal 5 (2): 1–27. http://doi.org/10.16995/sim.18.
  12. Barrett, Michèle. 1984. “Rethinking Women’s Oppression: A Reply to Brenner and Ramas.” New Left Review 146: 123–128.Google Scholar
  13. Barrett, Michèle, and Mary McIntosh. 1991. The Anti-Social Family. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  14. Battles, Kathleen, and Wendy Hilton-Morrow. 2002. “Gay Characters in Conventional Spaces: Will and Grace and the Situation Comedy Genre.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 19 (1): 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Battles, Kathleen, and Wendy Hilton-Morrow. 2015. Sexual Identities and the Media. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Beckett, Katherine. 1995. “Fetal Rights and ‘Crack Moms’: Pregnant Women in the War on Drugs.” Contemporary Drug Problems 22 (4): 587–612.  https://doi.org/10.1177/009145099502200404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bellamy, Robert V., and James R. Walker. 1996. Television and the Remote Control. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  18. Berlant, Lauren. 1994. “‘America, ‘Fat,’ the Fetus’.” Boundary 2 21 (3): 145–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Berlant, Lauren. 2008. The Female Complaint. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Berlant, Lauren. 2011. Cruel Optimism. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Berlant, Lauren, and Michael Warner. 1995. “What Does Queer Theory Teach Us About X?” PMLA 110: 343–349.Google Scholar
  22. Berlant, Lauren, and Michael Warner. 1998. “Sex in Public.” Critical Inquiry 24 (2): 547–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bérubé, Allan, and Jeffrey Escoffier. 1991. “Queer/Nation: OUT/Look.” National Lesbian and Gay Quarterly 11: 13–14.Google Scholar
  24. Beyoncé. 2017. “We would like to share our love and happiness. We have been blessed two times over. We are incredibly grateful that our family will be growing by two, and we thank you for your well wishes.—The Carters.” Instagram, February 1. https://www.instagram.com/p/BP-rXUGBPJa/?hl=en.
  25. Biressi, Anita, and Heather Nunn. 2005. Reality TV: Realism and Revelation. New York: Wallflower Press.Google Scholar
  26. Blackman, Lisa, and Valerie Walkerdine. 2001. Mass Hysteria. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Bogle, Donald. 2016. Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies and Bucks: An Interpretative History of Blacks in American Films. 5th ed. New York: Bloomsbury Academy.Google Scholar
  28. Boudreaux, Michael, and John Thompson. 2015. “Maternal Rights and Substance Abuse: Gestation Without Representation.” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 43 (2): 137–140.Google Scholar
  29. Brennen, Bonnie. 2012. Qualitative Research Methods for Media Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Briggs, Laura. 2017. How All Politics Became Reproductive Politics—From Welfare Reform to Foreclosure to Trump. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  31. Browne, Kath, and Catherine Nash. 2010. Queer Methods and Methodologies: Intersecting Queer Theories and Social Science Research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Brundson, Charlotte. 1997. Screen Tastes: Soap Opera to Satellite Dishes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Brunsdon, Charlotte, and David Morley. 1978. Everyday Television: Nationwide. London: BFI Institute.Google Scholar
  34. Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Cardiff, David, and Paddy Scannell. 1993. A Social History of British Broadcasting: Volume One 1922–1939. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Cavalcante, André. 2014. “Anxious Displacements: The Representation of Gay Parenting on Modern Family and the New Normal and the Management of Cultural Anxiety.” Television & New Media 1 (18): 454–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Chatman, Seymour. 1980. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Film and Fiction. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Cohen, Cathy J. 1997. “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics?” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 3 (4): 437–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Coleman, Rebecca. 2008. The Becoming of Bodies.” Feminist Media Studies 8 (2): 163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Coleman, Rebecca. 2012. The Becoming of Bodies: Girls, Image, Experience. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Collins, Nancy. 1991. “Demi’s Big Moment”. Vanity Fair.Google Scholar
  43. Coontz, Stephanie. 1993. Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  44. Corea, Gena. 1985. The Hidden Malpractice: How American Medicine Mistreats Women. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  45. Corea, Gena. 1988. The Mother Machine. London: The Women’s Press.Google Scholar
  46. Coronation Street. 1960–present. Created by Tony Warren. TV programme. Manchester: ITV.Google Scholar
  47. Coudhary, Anand Amit. 2015. “SC Suggests Ban on Commercial Surrogacy.” The Times of India, October 15. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-suggests-ban-on-commercial-surrogacy/articleshow/49365734.cms.
  48. Couldry, Nick. 2002. Media Rituals: A Critical Approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Daniels, Cynthia. 2009. At Women’s Expense: State Power and the Rise of Fetal Rights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Davies, Angela. 1983. Women, Race, Class. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  51. Davies, Angela. 1998. “Surrogates and Outcast Mothers: Racism and Reproductive Politics in the Nineties.” In The Angela & Davis Reader, edited by Joy James. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  52. Davies, Miranda. 2017. Babies for Sale? Transnational Surrogacy, Human Rights and the Politics of Reproduction. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  53. Davitz, Lois. 1984. Baby Hunger. 1st ed. Minneapolis: Winston Press.Google Scholar
  54. De Beauvoir, Simone. 1972. The Second Sex. Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  55. DeVille, Kenneth, and Loretta Kopelman. 1998. “Moral and Social Issues Regarding Pregnant Women Who Use and Abuse Drugs.” Substance Abuse in Pregnancy 25 (1): 237–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Devine, Bronwyn. 2017. “Our Surrogacy Laws Are Not Keeping Up with the Kardashians.” The Daily Telegraph, August 10. https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/our-surrogacy-laws-are-not-keeping-up-with-the-kardashians/news-story/0607c3dc7bfadce33104ca6c4b38aff7.
  57. Dimitriadis, Greg, and George Kamberelis. 2008. “Focus Groups: Strategic Articulations of Pedagogy, Politics and Enquiry”. In Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, edited by Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  58. Doty, Alexander. 1993. Making Things Perfectly Queer: Interpreting Mass Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  59. Dubow, Sara. 2011. Ourselves Born: A History of the Fetus in Modern America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Duits, Linda, and Pauline van Romondt Vis. 2001. “Girls Make Sense: Girls, Celebrities and Identities.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 12 (1): 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Edelman, Lee. 2004. No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Everingham, Sam. 2017. Overview of Surrogacy Options. Families Through Surrogacy. http://www.familiesthrusurrogacy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Overview-of-Surrogacy-Options.pdf. Accessed 2 September 2017.
  63. Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Farquhar, Dion. 1996. The Other Machine: Discourse and Reproductive Technologies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Feasey, Rebecca. 2013. “From Soap Opera to Reality Programming: Examining Motherhood, Motherwork and the Maternal Role on Popular Television.” Imaginations: Journal of Cross-Cultural Image Studies 4 (2): 25–46.Google Scholar
  66. Feasey, Rebecca. 2015. Mothers on Mothers: Maternal Readings of Popular Television. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Feuer, Jane. 1983. “The Concept of Live Television: Ontology as Ideology.” In Regarding Television, edited by Ann Kaplan. Frederick, MD: University Publications of America.Google Scholar
  68. Finding Nemo. 2003. Directed by Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich and written by Andrew Stanton, Bob Peterson, David Reynolds. Film. Los Angeles, CA: Walt Disney.Google Scholar
  69. Finkelstein, Joanne. 1990. “Biomedicine and Technocratic Power.” Hastings Center Report 20: 13–16.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3562760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Finley, Tara. 2015. “Organizer Says Black Residents Were ‘Left To Die’ After Hurricane Katrina.” Huffington Post US, 25 August. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/organizer-says-black-residents-were-left-to-die-after-hurricane-katrina_us_55dc805be4b04ae497046f9c.
  71. Firestone, Shulamith. 1970. Dialectic of Sex: The Case for a Feminist Revolution. New York: Naomi Wolf.Google Scholar
  72. Flavin, Jeanne, and Lynn Paltrow. 2010. “Punishing Pregnant Drug-Using Women: Defying Law, Medicine, and Common Sense.” Journal of Addicted Diseases 29 (2): 231–244.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10550881003684830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Franklin, Sarah. 1990. “Deconstructing Desperateness’: The Social Construction of Infertility in Popular Representations of New Reproductive Technologies” In The New Reproductive Technologies, edited by Maureen McNeil. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Franklin, Sarah. 1991. “Fetal Fascinations: New Dimensions to the Medical-Scientific Construction of Fetal Personhood.” In Off-Centre: Feminism and Cultural Studies, edited by Sarah Franklin, Celia Lury, and Jackie Stacey. Hammersmith: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  75. Franklin, Sarah, and Maureen McNeil. 1988. “Reproductive Futures: Recent Literature and Current Debates on Reproductive Technologies.” Feminist Studies 14 (3): 545–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Friedman, May. 2014. “Beyond MILF: Exploring Sexuality and Feminism in Public Motherhood.” Atlantis 36 (2): 49–60.Google Scholar
  77. Frith, Simon. 1983. “Pleasures of the Hearth”. In Formations of Pleasure. Paul Keegan. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  78. Gentile, Kate. 2011. “What About the Baby?’ The New Cult of Domesticity and Media Images of Pregnancy.” Studies in Gender and Sexuality 12 (1): 38–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Gerbner, George, Larry Gross, Michael Morgan, and Nancy Signorielli. 1986. Living with Television. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  80. Gill, Rosalind. 2007. “Postfeminist Media Culture: Elements of Sensibility.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 10 (2): 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Gill, Rosalind, and Elena Herdieckerhoff. 2006. “Rewriting the Romance: New Femininities in Chick Lit?” Feminist Media Studies 6 (4): 487–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Giuliana & Bill. 2009–2014. Executively produced by Alastair Surprise, Robert Sizemore. TV programme. Los Angeles, CA: E!.Google Scholar
  83. Given, Lisa. 2008. The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  84. Goldenberg, Suzanne. 2017. “Rescued from Katrina, New Life for a Frozen Embryo.” The Guardian, January 16. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jan/16/hurricanekatrina.usa.
  85. Gorton, Kristyn. 2009. Media Audiences. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Grossberg, Larry. 1997. Bringing It All Back Home: Essays on Cultural Studies. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Grosz, Elizabeth. 1994. Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism (Theories of Representation and Difference). Indiana: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Gupta, Jyotsna Agnihotri, and Annemiek Richters. 2008. “Embodied Subjects and Fragmented Objects: Women’s Bodies, Assisted Reproduction Technologies and the Right to Self-Determination.” Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5 (4): 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Halberstam, Judith. 2011. The Queer Art of Failure. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Halberstam, Judith. 2013. Gaga Feminism: Sex, Gender and the End of Normal. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  91. Hall, Stuart. 1973. Encoding and Decoding in Television Discourse. University of Birmingham: Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies.Google Scholar
  92. Hall, Stuart. 1997. Representation: Cultural Representation and Signifying Practices. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  93. Hall, Radclyffe. 2014. Well of Loneliness. New ed. Ware: Wordsworth Editions.Google Scholar
  94. Halperin, David. 2003. “The Normalization of Queer Theory.” Journal of Homosexuality 45 (2–4): 339–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Han, Sallie. 2008. “Seeing Like a Family: Fetal Ultrasound Images and Imaginings of Kin.” In Imagining the Fetus the Unborn in Myth, Religion, and Culture, edited by Vanessa Sasson and Jane Marie Law. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Haraway, Donna. 2010. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  98. Hartley, John. 1999. Uses of Television. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  99. Hewlett, Sylvia Anne. 2002. Baby Hunger: The New Battle for Motherhood. London: Atlantic.Google Scholar
  100. Hill, Anette. 2004. Realty TV Audience and Popular Factual Television. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  101. Hirsch, Marianne. 1997. Family Frames: Photography, Narrative, and Postmemory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Holland, Janet, and Caroline Ramazangolu. 2002. Feminist Methodology: Challenges and Choices. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  103. Hollinger, Joan. 1984. “From Coitus to Commerce: Legal and Social Consequences of Noncoital Reproduction.” Reform 18: 865–932.Google Scholar
  104. Holmes, Su, and Deborah Jermyn. 2003. Understanding Reality TV. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  105. Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority. 2018. Fertility Treatment 2014–2016. https://www.hfea.gov.uk/media/2563/hfea-fertility-trends-and-figures-2017-v2.pdf. Accessed 2 January 2019.
  106. Johnsen, Dawn E. 1986. “The Creation of Fetal Rights: Conflicts with Women’s Constitutional Rights to Liberty, Privacy, and Equal Protection.” Articles by Maurer Faculty. Paper 905.Google Scholar
  107. Jones, Ellen E. 2017. “Empty Nests: Why Has TV Become Obsessed with Surrogate Mothers?” The Guardian, August 14. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/aug/14/top-of-the-lake-handmaids-tale-tv-obsessed-surrogate-mothers-infertility-parenting.
  108. Kaplan, Anne. 1992. Motherhood and Representation: The Mother in Popular Culture and Melodrama. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  109. Kaplan, Anne. 1994. “Manifest Domesticity.” American Literature 70 (3): 581–606,  https://doi.org/10.2307/2902710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Kavka, Misha. 2008. Reality Television, Affect and Intimacy. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  111. Kitzinger, Jenny. 1994. “The Methodology of Focus Groups: The Importance of Interaction Between Research Participants.” Sociology of Health & Illness 16 (1): 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Kitzinger, Jenny. 2004. “The Methodology of Focus Groups: The Importance of Interaction Between Research Participants.” Sociology of Health and Illness 16 (1): 103–121.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Lam, Carla. 2015. New Reproductive Technologies and Disembodiment. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  114. Lasch, Christopher. 1991. The Culture of Narcissism. New ed. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  115. Laverne & Shirley. 1976–1983. Created by Lowell Ganz, Garry Marshall, Mark Rothman. TV programme. Los Angeles, CA: Miller-Milkis.Google Scholar
  116. Leibovitz, Annie. 1991. Vanity Fair, More Demi Moore.Google Scholar
  117. Lester, Barry, Lynne Andreozzi, and Lindsey Appiah. 2004. “Substance Use During Pregnancy: Time for Policy to Catch Up with Research.” Harm Reduction Journal 1 (1): 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Littler, Jo. 2013. “The Rise of the ‘Yummy Mummy’: Popular Conservatism and the Neoliberal Maternal in Contemporary British Culture.” Communication, Culture and Critique 6 (2): 227–243.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cccr.12010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Longhurst, Rebecca. 2000. “Corporeographies of Pregnancy: Bikiki Babes.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18 (4): 453–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Losco, Joseph. 1989. “Fetal Abuse: An Exploration of Emerging Philosophical, Legal, and Social Policy Issues.” Political Research Quarterly 42 (2): 265–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. MacKinnon, Barbara. 2000. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  122. Mad Men. 2007–2015. Created by Matthew Weiner. TV programme. Santa Monica, CA: Lionsgate.Google Scholar
  123. Massumi, Brian. 2002. Parables for the Virtual. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  124. Matthews, Sandra, and Laura Wexler. 2000. Pregnant Pictures. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  125. McCarthy, Anna. 2001. Ambient Television: Visual Culture and Public Space. Durham, DC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  126. McRobbie, Angela. 2004. “Post Feminism and Popular Culture.” Feminist Media Studies 4 (3): 255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Ministry of Justice Family Court. 2015. Cafcass Study of Parental Order Applications Made in 2013/2014. https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/document?id=1964928&returnUrl=Search%3Fpa%3D4%26q%3DCafcass%26s%3DDate&q=Cafcass. Accessed 4 July 2017.
  128. Mittell, Jason. 2004. Genre and Television: From Cop Shows to Cartoons in American Culture. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  129. Morley, David. 1980. The Nationwide Audience. London: British Film Institute.Google Scholar
  130. Morley, David. 2006. “Unanswered Questions in Audience Research.” The Communication Review 9 (2): 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Murdock, Anna. 1990. “Off the Treadmill—Leaving an IVF Programme Behind.” In The Baby Machine: Reproductive Technology and the Commercialisation of Motherhood, edited by Jocelyn Scutt. London: Merlin Press.Google Scholar
  132. Murray, Susan, and Laurie Ouellette. 2008. Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  133. Naficy, Hamid. 1989. “Television Intertextuality and the Discourse of the Nuclear Family.” Journal of Film and Video 41 (4): 42–59.Google Scholar
  134. Nelson, Jennifer. 2003. Women of Color and the Reproductive Rights Movement. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  135. Nightingale, Virginia. 1996. Studying Audiences: The Shock of the Real. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  136. Oaks, Laurie. 2000. “Smoke-Filled Wombs and Fragile Fetuses: The Social Politics of Fetal Representation.” Signs 26 (1): 63–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. O’Donohoe, Stephanie. 2006. “Yummy Mummies: The Clamor of Glamour in Advertising to Mother.” Advertising & Society Review 7 (3): 1–21.Google Scholar
  138. Oliver, Kelly. 1997. Family Values: Subjects Between Nature and Culture. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  139. Oliver, Kelly. 2012. Knock Me Up, Knock Me Down. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  140. Pee-wee’s Big Adventure. 1985. Directed by Tim Burton and written by Phil Hartman, Paul Reubens, Michael Varhol. Film. Burbank, CA: Warner Bros.Google Scholar
  141. Petchesky, Rosalind. 1987. “The Power of Visual Culture and the Politics of Reproduction.” Feminist Studies 13 (2): 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Petchesky, Rosalind. 1998. “Introduction”. In Negotiating Reproductive Rights: Women’s Perspectives Across Countries and Cultures, edited by Rosalind Petchesky and Karen Judd. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  143. Pfeffer, Naomi, and Anne Woollett. 1983. The Experience of Infertility. London: Virago.Google Scholar
  144. Plant, Sadie. 1996. “The Future Looms: Weaving Women and Cybernetics.” In Cyberspace/Cyberbodies/Cyberpunk: Cultures of Technological Embodiment, edited by Mike Featherstone and Richard Burrows. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  145. Press, Andrea. 1991. Women Watching Television: Gender, Class, and Generation in the American Television Experience. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  146. Pridmore-Brown, Michele. 2009. “Annie Lebovitz’s Queer Consumption of Motherhood.” Women’s Studies Quarterly 37 (3–4): 81–95.Google Scholar
  147. Private Life. 2018. Directed and written by Tamara Jenkins. Film. New York: Likely Story.Google Scholar
  148. Radway, Janice. 1983. “Women Read the Romance: The Interaction of Text and Context.” Feminist Studies 9 (1): 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Radway, Janice. 1992. Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature. 2nd ed. Chapel Hill, NC: University North Carolina.Google Scholar
  150. Rand, Erin. 2014. Reclaiming Queer: Activist and Academic Rhetorics of Resistance. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  151. Rich, Adrienne. 1980. “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 5 (4): 631–660.Google Scholar
  152. Rich, Adrienne. 1996. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. Reissue. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  153. Roberts, Dorothy. 1996. “Race and the New Reproduction.” Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 1154.Google Scholar
  154. Roberts, Dorothy. 2000. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  155. Roberts, Dorothy. 2014. “Complicating the Triangle of Race, Class and State: The Insights of Black Feminists.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 37 (10): 1776–1782.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2014.931988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Robinson, James, and Thomas Skill. 2001. “Four Decades of Families on Television: A Demographic Profile, 1950–1989.” In Television and the American Family, edited by Alison Bryant. 1st ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  157. Rose, Hilary. 1994. Love, Power and Knowledge: Towards a Feminist Transformation of the Sciences. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  158. Katz Rothman, Barbara. 2000. Recreating Motherhood. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  159. Rowland, Robyn. 1992. Living Laboratories: Women and Reproductive Technologies. London: Lime Tree.Google Scholar
  160. Rules of Engagement. 2007–2013. Created by Tom Hertz. TV programme. New York: CBS.Google Scholar
  161. Sandelowski, Margarete. 1990. “Fault Lines: Infertility and Imperiled Sisterhood.” Feminist Studies 16 (1): 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Sawicki, Janet. 1992. Disciplining Foucault: Feminism, Power, and the Body. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  163. Schlichter, Annette. 2004. “Queer at Last? Straight Intellectuals and the Desire for Transgression.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 10 (4): 543–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Scutt, Joceyln. 1990. The Baby Machine: Reproductive Technology and the Commercialisation of Motherhood. London: Merlin Press.Google Scholar
  165. Seinfeld. 1989–1998. Created by Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. TV programme. Los Angeles, CA: West-Shapiro.Google Scholar
  166. Shira, Gabriel, Elaine Paravati, Melanie C. Green, and Jason Flomsbee. 2018. “From Apprentice to President: The Role of Parasocial Connection in the Election of Donald Trump.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 9 (3): 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Silverstone, Roger. 1994. Television and Everyday Life. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  168. Skeggs, Beverley. 1997. Formations of Class and Gender: Becoming Respectable. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  169. Skeggs, Beverley. 2005. “The Making of Class and Gender Through Visualizing Moral Subject Formation.” Sociology 39 (5): 965–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Skeggs, Beverley. 2009. “The Moral Economy of Person Production: The Class Relations of Self-Performance on `Reality’ Television.” The Sociological Review 57 (4): 626–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Skeggs, Beverley, and Helen Wood. 2011. Reality Television and Class. London: British Film Institute.Google Scholar
  172. Skeggs, Beverley, and Helen Wood. 2012. Reacting to Reality Television, Performance, Audience and Value. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  173. Skeggs, Beverley, Nancy Thumim, and Helen Wood. 2008. “Oh Goodness, I am Watching Reality TV’: How Methods Make Class in Audience Research.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 11 (1): 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Slagle, Anthony. 1995. “In Defense of Queer Nation: From Identity Politics to a Politics of Difference.Western Journal of Communication 59 (2): 85–102.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319509374510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. Smith, Murray. 1995. Engaging Characters: Fiction, Emotion and the Cinema. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  176. Some Like It Hot. 1959. Directed by Billy Wilder and written by Billy Wilder, I.A.L. Diamond. Film. Los Angeles, CA: Ashton.Google Scholar
  177. Spigel, Lynn. 2005. “TV’s Next Season?” Cinema Journal 45 (1): 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Stanworth, Michelle. 1987. Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood, Medicine. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  179. Statista. 2019. Average Daily TV Viewing Time Per Person in Selected Countries Worldwide in 2016. https://www.statista.com/statistics/276748/average-daily-tv-viewing-time-per-person-in-selected-countries/. Accessed 2 February 2019.
  180. Taylor, Janelle. 1992. “The Public Fetus and the Family Car: From Abortion Politics to a Volvo Advertisement.” Public Culture 4 (2): 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. Taylor, Lisa, and Andrew Willis. 1999. Media Studies: Texts, Institutions and Audiences. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  182. Taylor, Lisa, and Helen Wood. 2008. “Feeling Sentimental About Television and Audiences.” Cinema Journal 47 (3): 141–151, Project MUSE.Google Scholar
  183. Teman, Tilly. 2005. Birthing a Mother: The Surrogate Body and the Pregnant Self. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  184. The Handmaid’s Tale. 2017–present. Created by Bruce Miller. Written by Margaret Atwood. TV programme. Channel 4.Google Scholar
  185. The New Normal. 2012–2013. Created by Elodie Keene, Max Winkler, Ryan Murphy. TV programme. New York: NBC.Google Scholar
  186. Thomas, Calvin. 2000. Straight with a Twist: Queer Theory and the Subject of Heterosexuality. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  187. Thompson, Charis. 2005. Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  188. Throsby, Karen. 2004. When IVF Fails: Feminism, Infertility and the Negotiation of Normal. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  189. Todorov, Tzvetan. 1990. Genres in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  190. Top of the Lake: China Girl. 2017. Directed by Jane Campion and written by Jane Campion, Gerard Lee. TV programme. London: BBC2.Google Scholar
  191. Treadwell, Mead. 1972. “Is Abortion Black Genocide?” Family Planning Perspectives 4 (1): 4–5.Google Scholar
  192. Winddance Twine, France. 2011. Outsourcing the Womb: Race, Class, and Gestational Surrogacy in a Global Market. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  193. Tyler, Imogen. 2001. “Skin-Tight: Celebrity, Pregnancy and Subjectivity.” In Thinking Through the Skin, edited by Sara Ahmed, and Jackie Stacey. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  194. Tyler, Imogen. 2008. “Why the Maternal Now?” Published by the Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YT, UK. http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/sociology/papers/tylerwhythematernalnow.pdf.
  195. Tyler, Imogen. 2011. “Pregnant Beauty: Maternal Femininities Under Neoliberalism.” In New Femininities: Postfeminism, Neoliberalism and Subjectivity, edited by Rosalind Gill and Christina Scharff. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. Uricchio, William. 2005. “Television’s Next Generation: Technology/Interface Culture/Flow.” In Television After TV: Essays on a Medium in Transition, edited by Lyn Spigel and Jan Olsson. Durham: Duke University Press, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. Wacjman, Judy. 1991. Feminism Confronts Technology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  198. Walker, Janet. 1982. “Feminist Critical Practice: Female Discourse in Mildred Pierce.” Film Reader 5: 164–172.Google Scholar
  199. Warner, Michael. 1993. Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  200. Warner, Michael. 1999. The Trouble with Normal. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  201. Weir, Sara, and Constance Faulkner. 2004. Voices of a New Generation. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  202. Wilkinson, Sue. 1999. “Focus Groups: A Feminist Method.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 23 (2): 221–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. Wilkinson, Sue. 2004. “Focus Group Research.” In Qualitative Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, edited by David Silverman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  204. Williams, Linda. 1991. “Film Bodies: Gender, Genre, and Excess.” Film Quarterly 44 (4): 2–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. Winch, Alison. 2012. “We Can Have It All.” Feminist Media Studies 12 (1): 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. Wood, Helen. 2009. Talking with Television: Women, Talk Shows, and Modern Self-Reflexivity. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  207. World Record Egg. 2019. “Let’s Set a World Record Together and Get the Most Liked Post on Instagram. Beating the Current World Record Held by Kylie Jenner (18 million)! We Got This.” Instagram. January 4. https://www.instagram.com/p/BsOGulcndj-/.
  208. Yep, Gust. 2004. Queer Theory and Communication: From Disciplining the Queers, to Queering the Disciplines(s). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  209. Zajonc, Robert. 2000. “Feeling and Thinking: Closing the Debate Over the Independence of Affect.” In Feeling and Thinking: The Role of Affect in Social Cognition, edited by Joseph Paul Forgas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lulu Le Vay
    • 1
  1. 1.LondonUK

Personalised recommendations