Anna N of Jezebel, in a post on the general state of “men’s reproductive rights” activism, raises a persistent point that… I wonder… well, let’s go with the quote first
But sometimes it’s men who shut women out. In her thorough article for The Nation on reproductive coercion (which we’ve also discussed), Lynn Harris writes of “the striking frequency with which it is in fact young men who try to force their partners to get pregnant. Their goal: not to settle down as family men but rather to exert what is perhaps the most intimate, and lasting, form of control.” She cites one study finding that 15% of sexually active young women who visited reproductive health clinics had suffered birth control sabotage by a partner, and another in which 26% of a sample of teens in abusive, sexually active relationships said their partners were “actively trying to get them pregnant.”
So…
I’m wondering…
Y’know how all those “pro-life” types will do just about anything to stop women from getting an abortion… or even avoiding pregnancy in the first place… except, y’know, make it actually safe, easy, inexpensive, and socially acceptable for women to, y’know, actually stay preganant, have, and raise their unplanned, unwanted pregnancies?
And how instead they try and make it, and keep it, as close to social, economic, moral, even corporal punishment as possible? How they present it as the ultimate in dependency? In sacrifice? In pain, and exhaustion, and tedium, and frustration, and helplessnes? In stigma? In shame?
So…
I’m wondering…
How much do you think all that plays into this notion of coerced pregnancy as intimate control (a.k.a. as a form of partner abuse?)
I mean…
Not to put too fine a point on it but it’s well within society’s capacity to make unplanned, unwanted children (if not pregnancy itself) not just not just not punishment, and not just easy, but downright enjoyable. In the grand scheme of things it involves beginning social investment in children’s lives just a few years earlier than we do now — call it 3-6 months before birth instead of 3-4 years after.
And it’s not like the returns on that social investment wouldn’t be appropriate — I mean, even after 18 years of exacting all those “wages of sin” from the mother on behalf of traditionalist/conservatives, those same children will spend somewhere between four and seven decades as real adults — equal with all other adults for responsibility for the world. To invest in children as future fellow citizens instead of present punishments for parents would be to reap fantastic benefits in the future.
And…
Finally…
Not to put too fine a point on it but just how enthused might callow youths be to sabotage their partners pills or to pinhole their condoms if the outcome was not lasting “who’ll love you now, bebbeh?” control but a little more respectability, more rather than less independence, and a whole lot more support?
I’m not saying let’s all go out and encourage teen pregnancy. I am, however, saying that to the extent society would like to avoid teen pregnancy and, especially to also avoid pregnancy terminations, the incentives are currently… perverse.




Great idea. In my country,
Submitted by svollga (not verified) on Fri, 2010-05-28 16:17.Great idea.
In my country, there’s a lot of talk about ‘demographic crisis’. One of the main reasons is that people are afraid to have children because they don’t have money and/or certainty in their future to raise them.
The state’s decision? Okay, they promised some money to the families which are having their second child. Not that much money, mind you. And you can use it only for buying a flat or for the child’s education (and health in some cases). And you have any chance to receive them only after the child is 3 years old.
For some reason, I’m not sure it actually helps much. There are some families who want a second child and this may help them in their decision, but… it looks all mostly useless to me.
Of course, the suggestion of one priest/state official to equal abortion with murder and punish women who do it with 8 years of prison is much more helpful. Duh.
[Interesting, Svollga. I know in a lot of countries in Europe and Asia, especially, are feeling stressed about birth rates that are below replacement rates. I also know that the incentives and/or threats they offer aren’t exactly all that encouraging. And as I hinted in my post I think it’s still got a lot to do with lower-case “p” patriarchal ideas of what children are supposed to mean. And yeah, having priests weigh in isn’t really going to help that. Thanks. —fl]
I’m very skeptical that
Submitted by Sungold (not verified) on Sat, 2010-05-29 13:42.I’m very skeptical that making it easier to raise a child as a single mother would do anything to deter contraceptive sabotage. Even if teen pregnancy were celebrated and 100% supported by taxpayers, the physical aspects of pregnancy and childbirth would remain a terrible burden for anyone who doesn’t want to be pregnant. The “corporal punishment” aspect of forced pregnancy is irreducible. It can’t be ameliorated by social attitudes or government programs. And I’m pretty sure control-freak boyfriends are well aware of this.
[”...the physical aspects of pregnancy and childbirth would remain a terrible burden for anyone who doesn’t want to be pregnant.” Which is of course the very biggest reason why, no matter what, termination always has to be an option. And I agree that in serious control-freak situations if “all” an abusively controlling boyfriend can do is get his partner pregnant then he’ll still consider it. But I’m… still pretty confident that the biggest reason they do it is because making someone pregnant is also “the worst thing that can happen to her” in terms of social and economic, plus family, plus shame, plus, plus, plus. And so while a social transformation regarding “teen” and “out of wedlock” pregnancy that I’d like to see anyway wouldn’t eliminated forced pregnancy (any more than it would eliminate controlling boyfriends) what it would do is make it no longer the social and personal punishment it is today… and so, I’m pretty sure, it would make it much less appealing an option. I should have mentioned in the main post, by the way, that I think another consequence of destigmatizing and supporting such pregnancies is that it would tend to re-orient focus onto the fathers — for instance if there’s no shame and/or blame to being pregnant there’d be… well… considerably less social pressure not to name the father. Or, I think paradoxically, to hold fathers as socially, if not economically, as responsible for their children as mothers are. I think that would tend to make men at least a little more wary of deliberately making someone pregnant against her wishes. But at the end of the day… and the beginning of the day too for that matter… contraception, emergency contraception, and abortion services need to be non-negotiably accessible and affordable no matter what. Thanks for the nudge, Sungold, I agree I was paying so much attention to the one point I stinted the other. —fl]