Glenda Simms, Contributor
IN A few days, we will be at the start of a new year 2004. While many things would have changed for the generations who will be alive on January 1, many things will remain the same.
Among the ones that will be the same are ideas about the sexual politics of the role of men and women in this society.
In this article, I am taking a look at a narrow band of women, who, by virtue of their decision not to have children, pose a direct threat to those men and women who are determined that biology must be woman's destiny.
I am not talking about women who have decided to forego the prerogatives of their sexuality to join a religious order that requires them to be childless. I am also not discussing the childlessness of women who chose a career path and delayed childbearing past the time when this would be possible. Nor am I discussing women who are unable to conceive because of some physiological or psychological dysfunction. I am also not discussing the fate of women who are hitched to men with whom they are incompatible and therefore have not been able to conceive.
I am turning my attention to young, vibrant, intelligent and self-assured women who have decided that they do not want to have children. These are women who love children and, in fact, usually agree to become
godmothers to the children of their friends and relatives.
Such women are not driven by their nation's policy on population and its relationship to social stability and economic growth. Oh no, these individuals are ones who have made a choice to be childless in spite of the social and political pressures that tell women of all classes that they are abnormal if they make such a choice.
This choice is a difficult one in most societies because women's reproductive rights are among the most political and controversial set of human rights.
CONTROLLING WOMEN'S BODIES
In the October/November 2000 issue of Ms. Magazine, an article written by Susan Jane Gilman discusses the backlash against women who take control of their own bodies. Gilman also discusses concepts of "de-masculinisation" from anthropologist Lionel Tiger's book The Decline of the Male.
It was concluded in Gilman's article, that men's power base is not only in the accumulated wealth and the political capital of the countries they control, but in their privileged position of having control over women's bodies and women's lives as well.
It is this second level of control that is most insidious. When it is threatened, men become totally unbalanced.
In his book, Tiger argued that the birth control pill is a major threat to men because they can no longer be assured of their own paternity. Therefore, he argues that women's empowerment and their control over their own sexuality threatens male masculinity.
But men are not the only ones who oppose women's ability to control their bodies and sex. Many women are "gate-keepers" for patriarchy. It is, therefore, not unusual to find some women who are the most anti-woman advocates. Some are so rabid that they must be placed in the same category as the most misogynistic male.
These women are the cheerleaders for patriarchy. They criticise women who make the decision to remain childless and independent. They, like their male counterparts, subscribe to the idea that sex should be merely a means of reproducing.
In the United States, such women are exemplified by an organisation which Gilman discusses. It is called Independent Women's Forum (IWF) which attracted very wealthy, powerful, high-profiled, conservative women who oppose all the major planks of gender equity, including initiatives that would deal effectively with gender-based violence.
It is interesting to point out that these anti-feminist women gain media traction and attention because they were women. No one dared called them sexist. And to ensure that they could not be called racist, they recruited one or two "coconut" African-American women.
So, in this scenario, a woman who makes the decision to be sexually active but ensures that she remains childless is a real threat to the patriarchal values which are promulgated by both men and women. Such a woman is threatening because she redefines her sexuality, not as a tool for reproduction, but as an avenue in which she finds pleasure and a way of relating in an intimate way with a partner with whom she is compatible.
In Jamaica, there might be no equivalent to the IWF, but there are far too many individual women who believe that a woman who has no children is a "mule" and that the good Lord expects every woman "to have out her lot". These women find it very difficult to understand why some of their sisters should have the right to be childless.
UNNATURAL
However, all of us need to realise that there are many women who want to have control of their bodies and who want to make the decision to have or not to have a child. There are far too many women who feel they are out of control of their bodies. It would appear then that when a woman makes a decision not to have a child, she is expected to have an explanation that borders on some type of pathology. She is either seen as cold and frigid or not liking children. Additionally, such a woman's choice is seen as unnatural.
While it is true that the majority of women do end up having children, there are many of these who wished they did not have the children. It is not that they do not love their children, but a part of them yearn for autonomy from the strictures of motherhood and parenting.
Writer Carolyn Megan argues that "The decision not to have children is given far more scrutiny than the decision to have children." So a woman must justify to society her decision not to bear children.
As stated before, when a woman makes a conscious decision not to have children, it is not an easy decision. Megan states that "It is an intimidating and difficult task to live empowered, to make decisions and define yourself outside the societal concept of what a woman should be."
In her book, The Joys of Motherhood, Buchi Emecheta, an African writer who now lives in England, tells the story of Nnu Ego, the daughter of a tribal chief in the village of Ibuza. Because she is unable to bear a child for her first husband, Nnu Ego is sent back to her father, who promptly forces her to marry a man she despises, a very ugly man.
But this ugly new husband gives Nnu Ego status by making her pregnant. In other words, he renders her a woman and a mother in her culture. Thus, he validates her culturally prescribed humanity.
Obviously, it would be very difficult for women in such traditional societies to find the strength of their conviction to make a decision to be childless.
Jamaican women of all ethnic groups are exposed to ideas about womanhood that are not that far removed from the traditions of the ancestral homelands. However, some of them are making serious decisions to reclaim their humanity in the space afforded them by the dynamics of their dispersal.
Our society would be best served if we learn to respect the fact that women have a right to make a choice about their sexuality, their body integrity and their role in the development of their society.
Dr. Glenda Simms is the executive director of the Bureau of Women's Affairs.
