![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
oyceterFor ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
coffeeandink
Roberts writes about reproductive freedom for poor black women and how that reproductive freedom often differs from the standard definition used by most white feminists, particularly the mainstream feminist movement for the right to abortion and birth control versus the right to not be coerced or deceived into sterilization or into taking birth control drugs you did not agree to. From there, she examines the meaning of liberty in the United States and what to do when the idea of negative liberty butts up against the idea of social justice.
I suspect I would have found this book much more mind-blowing had I not read Andrea Smith's Conquest first (read it! READ IT!); as such, I still think it's a very necessary read, although it's a bit more dated and Roberts doesn't synthesize her argument quite as well. The book goes through the history of black reproductive freedom, particularly black female reproductive freedom, from the days of slavery, when a black woman's reproductive system was, along with the rest of her, property of white men, when masters could and would whip their pregnant slaves even as they dug holes in the dirt to protect the property in their wombs. And while slavery is over, Roberts shows again and again that the same attitude about black women's bodies and reproductive systems are perpetuated.
She goes on to show that if black women's babies cannot be the property of white people, they are instead portrayed as a burden ("crack babies" and "welfare mothers"). While I completely agree with her argument, I felt she could have drawn more parallels with how race and sex and class intersect; frequently she would point to classist language ("welfare mothers") and note that they were racially coded, even if not explicitly so in the language. It's not to say that she ignores class; class is a constant throughout the book, as it is always the poorest black women who have the worst choices forced upon them. I think I just wanted a more detailed connection.
I had the same issue with ablism. Roberts cites several cases in which black mothers are classified as "mentally disabled" as a convenient way to convince others of the need to sterilize them. In some of the cases, the mother was not differently abled, but in some of the others, she may have been, and I think the book would have been stronger had Roberts incorporated a critique of the ablism inherent in many of the arguments for sterilization. This goes doubly when she discusses the eugenics movement, which she mainly writes about as being a barely coded means for white people to talk about black genocide. Again, I completely agree with her here and in no way want to lessen the strength of her argument. But I think synthesizing classism and ablism further into her analysis of racism and sexism would only make it stronger, a la Andrea Smith drawing parallels among sexual violence against Native women, Native American genocide, and environmental violence.
Many of the chapters on medical experimentation on black women, forced sterilization, uninformed drug trials, and coerced birth control are familiar from Smith, and though I don't have the book with me anymore, I'm fairly certain Roberts is talking about present-day happenings. Norplant and Depo-Provera again, and who knows what big Pharma is doing in Africa (thank you, Sonia Shah). She also links the present with the past, from owning black bodies to the Tuskegee Syphilis Studies.
Still, the most painful part of the book is when she shows how the interests of poor black women and middle-class white women have collided, particularly when it comes to a waiting period for sterilization and informed consent for birth control. This is where I think Roberts does her best work; this is where she takes the idea of negative liberty and contrasts it with social justice:
She manages to critique the mainstream feminist movement and how it has historically ignored issues central to the well-being of poor black women while still arguing for a need of both increased access to abortion and birth control along with protecting those who have historically been the most abused. I'm still thinking over many of her points about liberty and justice and especially wondering how it works in places that promote positive liberty instead of negative.
coffeeandinkRoberts writes about reproductive freedom for poor black women and how that reproductive freedom often differs from the standard definition used by most white feminists, particularly the mainstream feminist movement for the right to abortion and birth control versus the right to not be coerced or deceived into sterilization or into taking birth control drugs you did not agree to. From there, she examines the meaning of liberty in the United States and what to do when the idea of negative liberty butts up against the idea of social justice.
I suspect I would have found this book much more mind-blowing had I not read Andrea Smith's Conquest first (read it! READ IT!); as such, I still think it's a very necessary read, although it's a bit more dated and Roberts doesn't synthesize her argument quite as well. The book goes through the history of black reproductive freedom, particularly black female reproductive freedom, from the days of slavery, when a black woman's reproductive system was, along with the rest of her, property of white men, when masters could and would whip their pregnant slaves even as they dug holes in the dirt to protect the property in their wombs. And while slavery is over, Roberts shows again and again that the same attitude about black women's bodies and reproductive systems are perpetuated.
She goes on to show that if black women's babies cannot be the property of white people, they are instead portrayed as a burden ("crack babies" and "welfare mothers"). While I completely agree with her argument, I felt she could have drawn more parallels with how race and sex and class intersect; frequently she would point to classist language ("welfare mothers") and note that they were racially coded, even if not explicitly so in the language. It's not to say that she ignores class; class is a constant throughout the book, as it is always the poorest black women who have the worst choices forced upon them. I think I just wanted a more detailed connection.
I had the same issue with ablism. Roberts cites several cases in which black mothers are classified as "mentally disabled" as a convenient way to convince others of the need to sterilize them. In some of the cases, the mother was not differently abled, but in some of the others, she may have been, and I think the book would have been stronger had Roberts incorporated a critique of the ablism inherent in many of the arguments for sterilization. This goes doubly when she discusses the eugenics movement, which she mainly writes about as being a barely coded means for white people to talk about black genocide. Again, I completely agree with her here and in no way want to lessen the strength of her argument. But I think synthesizing classism and ablism further into her analysis of racism and sexism would only make it stronger, a la Andrea Smith drawing parallels among sexual violence against Native women, Native American genocide, and environmental violence.
Many of the chapters on medical experimentation on black women, forced sterilization, uninformed drug trials, and coerced birth control are familiar from Smith, and though I don't have the book with me anymore, I'm fairly certain Roberts is talking about present-day happenings. Norplant and Depo-Provera again, and who knows what big Pharma is doing in Africa (thank you, Sonia Shah). She also links the present with the past, from owning black bodies to the Tuskegee Syphilis Studies.
Still, the most painful part of the book is when she shows how the interests of poor black women and middle-class white women have collided, particularly when it comes to a waiting period for sterilization and informed consent for birth control. This is where I think Roberts does her best work; this is where she takes the idea of negative liberty and contrasts it with social justice:
This notion of liberty rests on the assumption that privileging individual autonomy over social justice is essential to human freedom. [...] The primacy of liberty over equality, then, accepts the possibility that inequality may be inevitable in a liberal society. Although the pursuit of equality, once liberty is assured, is commendable, liberalism cannot guarantee its realization.
She manages to critique the mainstream feminist movement and how it has historically ignored issues central to the well-being of poor black women while still arguing for a need of both increased access to abortion and birth control along with protecting those who have historically been the most abused. I'm still thinking over many of her points about liberty and justice and especially wondering how it works in places that promote positive liberty instead of negative.