Is Women’s Emancipation Still Compatible with Motherhood in Western Societies?

Chapter

Abstract

Compared to the offspring of other mammals humans make exceptionally large investments in gestation, delivery, breastfeeding and rearing their children until adulthood. Since the contraceptive revolution women are able to fully control their own reproduction: the stepping stone for female emancipation as it freed them from the burden of reproduction and male dominance. For the first time in history women can choose between motherhood and other activities without suppressing their sexuality. However some unforeseen problems emerged: low and late fertility; population ageing. First motherhood is often postponed nowadays to ages beyond the biological optimum, when having a child seems more convenient from a socio-economic perspective. Subfertility and infertility are therefore on the increase. Surprisingly, the health problems related to delay of childbearing have more or less remained unnoticed so far. Is emancipation still compatible with motherhood in the twenty-first century? The 1970s nurture concept on gender equality is still the prevailing concept in emancipation policies and has hardly been challenged by the new biological insights that men and women are different in some essential aspects. Gender equality should not imply that men and women are the same with regard to their abilities and attitudes towards work and children – the implicit assumption of most emancipation policies today. True equality must entail the notion that both sexes are equivalent in the sense of having the same value, which is different from being the same. Unique female features and abilities such as the deep rooted wish to have a child to care for, to be able to become pregnant, deliver a child, breastfeed, look after babies and better empathic qualities, should not only be accepted and taken into account, but highly appreciated.

Keywords

Labour Force Participation Gender Equality Assisted Reproductive Technology Male Dominance Surrogate Mother 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Allen, V.M., Wilson, R.D., & Cheung, A. (2006). Genetics committee of the society of obstetricians and gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) and reproductive endocrinology infertility committee of the society of obstetricians and gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC). Pregnancy outcomes after assisted reproductive technology. Journal of Obstetrics Gynaecology Canada, 28, 220–250.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, A.N., Goossens, V., Ferraretti, A.P., Bhattacharya, S., Felberbaum, R., de Mouzon, J., & Nygren, K.G. (2008). European IVF-monitoring (EIM) consortium and European society of human reproduction and embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2004: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Human Reproduction, 23, 756–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The Essential Difference. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  4. Bewley, S., Davies, M., & Braude, P. (2005). Which career first? BMJ, 331, 588–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blossfeld, H. (1995). The New Role of Women: Family Formation in Modern Societies. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  6. Buss, D.M. (1995). Psychological sex differences. Origins through sexual selection. The American Psychologist, 50, 164–168. discussion, 169–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buss, D.M. (1999). Evolutionary Psychology. The New Science of the Mind. Boston, London, Toronto, Sydney, Tokyo, Singapore: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, A. (2002). A Mind of Her Own. The Evolutionary Psychology of Women. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. (2001). Familial breast cancer: collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 52 epidemiological studies including 58,208 women with breast cancer and 101,986 women without the disease. Lancet, 358, 1389–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Waal, F. (1982). Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes. Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  11. De Waal, F.B. (1999). The end of nature versus nurture. Scientific American, 281, 94–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Esping-Andersen, G. (2002). A new gender contract. In G. Esping-Andersen & A. Hemerijck (Eds.), Why We Need a New Welfare State (68–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hakim, C. (2000). Work-Lifestyle Choices in The 21st Century: Preference Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J.F., Jones, N.G., Alvarez, H., & Charnov, E.L. (1998). Grandmothering, menopause, and the evolution of human life histories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 95, 1336–1339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Helmerhorst, F.M., Perquin, D.A., Donker, D., & Keirse, M.J. (2004). Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ, 328, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hewlett, S.A. (2002). Baby Hunger. The New Battle for Motherhood. London: Atlantic Books.Google Scholar
  17. Hrdy, S.B. (1999). Mother Nature. A History of Mothers, Infants and Natural Selection. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  18. Hyde, J.S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. The American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leridon, H. (2004). Can assisted reproduction technology compensate for the natural decline in fertility with age? A model assessment. Human Reproduction, 19, 1548–1553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Luke, B., & Brown, M.B. (2007). Elevated risks of pregnancy complications and adverse outcomes with increasing maternal age. Human Reproduction, 22, 1264–1272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lutz, W., Mamolo, M., Potančoková, M., Scherbov, S., & Sobotka, T. (2008). European Demographic Data Sheet 2008. http://www.populationeurope.org
  22. Potts, M., & Short, R.V. (1999). Ever Since Adam and Eve. The Evolution of Human Sexuality. (First edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Rensman, E. (2006). De pil in Nederland. Een mentaliteitsgeschiedenis. Amsterdam: Van Gennep.Google Scholar
  24. Riddle, J. (1997). Eve’s Herbes. A History of Contraception and Abortion in the West. Cambridge (Massachusetts), London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rosenberg, K., & Travathon, W. (2001). The evolution of human birth. Scientific American, 285, 72–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Short, R.V. (1994). Why sex? In R.V. Short & E. Balaban (Eds.), The Differences Between the Sexes (3–23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Shorter, E. (1991). Women’s Bodies. A Social History of Women’s Encounter with Health, Ill-Health and Medicine. New Brunswick (USA) and London (UK): Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Spar, D.L. (2006). The Baby Business. How Money, Science, and Politics Drive the Commerce of Conception. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  29. Stewart, D. (1984). The pelvis as a passageway. Evolution and adaptations. British Journal of Obstetrics Gynaecology, 91, 611–617.Google Scholar
  30. Te Velde, E.R., Habbema, J.D., Hilders, C.G., & Merkus, J.M. (2007). The consequences of postponing pregnancy. Ned. Tijdschr. Geneeskd., 151, 1593–1596.Google Scholar
  31. Te Velde, E.R., & Pearson, P.L. (2002). The variability of female reproductive ageing. Human Reproduction Update, 8, 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Templeton, A., Morris, J.K., & Parslow, W. (1996). Factors that affect outcome of in-vitro fertilization treatment. Lancet, 348, 1402–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van de Kaa, D.J. (1987). Europe’s second demographic transition. Population Bulletin, 42, 1–59.Google Scholar
  34. Van Noord-Zaadstra, B.M., Looman, C.W., Alsbach, H., Habbema, J.D., Te Velde, E.R., & Karbaat, J. (1991). Delaying childbearing: effect of age on fecundity and outcome of pregnancy. BMJ, 302, 1361–1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Venter, J.C., Adams, M.D., Myers, E.W., Li, P.W., Mural, R.J., Sutton, G.G., Smith, H.O., Yandell, M., Evans, C.A., Holt, R.A., et al. (2001). The sequence of the human genome. Science, 291, 1304–1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Weisglas-Kuperus, N., Hille, E.T., Duivenvoorden, H.J., Finken, M.J., Wit, J.M., Van Buuren, S., Van Goudoever, J.B., Verloove-Vanhorick, S.P., & Dutch POPS-19 Collaborative Study Group. (2009). Intelligence of very preterm or very low birthweight infants in young adulthood. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition, 94, F196–F200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Public HealthErasmus University Medical CentreRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations