Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T14:04:40.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reasoning from the Uterus: Casanova, Women's Agency, and the Philosophy of Birth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2021

Stella Villarmea Open the ORCID record for Stella Villarmea [Opens in a new window]
Stella Villarmea*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Humanities, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6GG, United Kingdom; Faculty of Philosophy, Complutense University of Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria, Madrid 28040, Spain
*
Corresponding author. [email protected]; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The emerging area of philosophy of birth is invaluable, first, to diagnose fallacious assumptions about the relation between the womb and reason, and, ultimately, to challenge potentially damaging narratives with major impact on birth care. With its analysis of eighteenth-century epistemic and medical discussions about the role of the uterus in women's reasoning (or lack of reasoning), this article supports two arguments: first, that women's “flawed thinking” was a premise drawn by many modern intellectual men, one that was presented as based upon empirical evidence; and second, that the pervasive construction of the uterus as an element that renders women wild, uncontrollable, and irrational continues to influence contemporary obstetrics (and maybe even to nurture obstetric violence), even as today's medicine and science consider themselves to be free of any such prejudices.

This article shows the role that Giacomo Casanova played in debunking these prejudices and presents his short manuscript on the issue as an important contribution to the literature of the Enlightenment, with its argument against women's supposed “natural” inferiority and for the idea that differences in education (rather than anatomical differences) were to blame for women's subordinate position in society.

Detailed analysis of the “thinking uterus” debate illuminates the different ways in which various arguments from/by the “anti-uterine” lobby were used to justify the subordination of women: sometimes emphasizing the connection between the uterus and thought and sometimes negating it, but always concluding that women's inferiority is to be found in some known or yet-to-be-discovered anatomical, and mainly sexual, deficiency or problem.

Type
Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , Winter 2021 , pp. 22 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Hypatia, a Nonprofit Corporation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amorós, Celia, ed. 2000. Feminismo y filosofía [Feminism and philosophy]. Madrid: Síntesis.Google Scholar
Amorós, Celia. 2014. Salomón no era sabio [Solomon was not wise]. Madrid: Fundamentos.Google Scholar
Arms, Suzanne. 1997. Immaculate deception II: Myth, magic and birth. Berkeley: Celestial Arts.Google Scholar
Bailey, Alison. 2011. Reconceiving surrogacy: Toward a reproductive justice account of Indian surrogacy. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 24 (4): 715–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bewley, Susan, and Humphry Ward, R.. 1994. Ethics in obstetrics and gynaecology. London: RCOG Press.Google Scholar
Betrán, Ana Pilar, Temmerman, Marleen, Kingdon, Carol, Mohiddin, Abdu, et al. 2018. Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies. The Lancet 392 (10155): 1358–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrom, Sheena, and Downe, Soo, eds. 2015. The roar behind the silence: Why kindness, compassion and respect matter in maternity care. London: Pinter & Martin.Google Scholar
Bush, Julia. 2007. Women against the vote. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canterla, Cinta. 2009. Mala noche: El cuerpo, la política y la irracionalidad en el siglo XVIII [Rough night: Body, politics, and irrationality in the eighteenth century]. Seville: Fundación José Manuel Lara.Google Scholar
Martínez, Capel, Rosa, M. ed. 1992. El sufragio femenino en la segunda república española [Female suffrage in the Spanish second republic]. Madrid: Horas y horas.Google Scholar
Capel Martínez, Rosa M. 2006. El sagrado derecho de votar [The sacred right to vote]. In Historia de las mujeres en España y América Latina [History of women in Spain and Latin America], ed. Morant, Isabel y Querol, María Ángeles. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
Casanova, Giacomo. 1999/2014. Lana caprina: Epístola de un licántropo [Splitting hairs: Letter by a lycanthrope]. Trans. Palomero, María Pepa. Madrid: Ediciones Hermida. [Italian edition: 2014. Lana caprina: Epistola di un licantropo, ed. Renato Giordano. Roma: Elliot edizioni.] [French edition: 1999. Lana caprina: Une controverse médicale sur l'Utérus pensant à l'Universite’ de Bologne en 1771–2, ed. Paul Mengal, transl. Roberto Poma. Paris: Honoré Champion Éditeur.]Google Scholar
Casanova, Giacomo. 2004. Memoirs of Casanova—Volume 29: Florence to Trieste. Trans. Machen, Arthur. Calibre E-book. https://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk.Google Scholar
Chalmers, Beverly. 1992. WHO appropriate technology for birth revisited. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 99 (9): 709–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen Shabot, Sara. 2016. Making loud bodies “feminine”: A feminist-phenomenological analysis of obstetric violence. Human Studies 39 (2): 231–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen Shabot, Sara. 2020a. We birth with others: Towards a Beauvoirian understanding of obstetric violence. European Journal of Women's Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506820919474.Google Scholar
Cohen Shabot, Sara. 2020b. Why “normal” feels so bad: Violence and vaginal examinations during labor—a (feminist) phenomenology. Feminist Theory. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700120920764.Google Scholar
Davis-Floyd, Robbie. 1992. Birth as an American rite of passage. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Davis-Floyd, Robbie. 2009. Birth models that work. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Deonandan, R., Green, S., and Van Beinum, A.. 2012. Ethical concerns for maternal surrogacy and reproductive tourism. Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (12): 742–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Downe, Soo, Finlayson, Kenneth William, Oladapo, Olufemi, Bonet, Mercedes, and Gülmezoglu, Metin. 2018. What matters to women during childbirth: A systematic qualitative review. PLOS ONE 13 (4): E0194906.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Downe, Soo. 2008. Normal childbirth: Evidence and debate (2nd ed.). Edinburgh and New York: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier.Google Scholar
Euro-Peristat Project. 2018. European Perinatal Health Report: Core indicators of the health and care of pregnant women and babies in Europe in 2015. November. www.europeristat.com.Google Scholar
Fabre, Cécile. 2006. Whose body is it anyway?: Justice and the integrity of the person. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández Guillén, Francisca. 2015. ¿Qué es la violencia obstétrica? Algunos aspectos sociales, éticos y jurídicos [What is obstetric violence? Some social, ethical, and juridical aspects]. Dilemata, Revista Internacional de Éticas Aplicadas/International Journal of Applied Ethics 7 (18): 113–28.Google Scholar
Gérvas, Juan, and Pérez-Fernández, Mercedes. 2016. El encarnizamiento médico con las mujeres [Medical fierceness toward women]. Barcelona: Los Libros del Lince.Google Scholar
Goberna, Josefina, and Boladeras, Margarita ed. 2018. El concepto “violencia obstétrica” y el debate actual sobre la atención al nacimiento [The notion of “obstetric violence” and the debate on childbirth care]. Madrid: Tecnos.Google Scholar
Hall, Priscilla. 2015. Keeping it together, falling apart and everything in between: A phenomenology of women's experience of childbirth. PhD diss., Emory University.Google Scholar
Harrison, Brian. 2013. Separate spheres: The opposition to women's suffrage in Britain. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellerstein, Erna Clafson, Hume, Leslie Parker, and Offen, Karen M., eds. 1981. Victorian women: A documentary account of women's lives in nineteenth-century England, France and the United States. Stanford: Stanford Univerity Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1965. Observations on the feeling of the beautiful and the sublime. Trans. Goldthwait, John T.. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Karlsdottir, Sigfridur, Halldorsdottir, Sigridur, and Ingela Lundgren, I. 2014. The third paradigm in labor pain preparation and management: The childbearing woman's paradigm. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 28 (2): 315–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, Holly, Cheyney, Melissa, Dahlen, Hannah, Downe, Soo, et al. 2018. Asking different questions: A call to action for research to improve the quality of care for every woman, every child. Birth 45 (3): 222–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitzinger, Sheyla. 1984. The experience of childbirth. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, Sheyla. 2006. Birth crisis. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitzinger, Sheyla. 2015. A passion for birth, my life: Anthropology, family and feminism. London. Pinter & Martin Ltd.Google Scholar
The Lancet Maternal Health Series. n.d. Too much, too soon. www.maternalhealthseries.org/explore-the-series/too-much-too-soon/.Google Scholar
Lokugamage, Amali, and Porter, Lindsay. 2011. The heart in the womb: An exploration of the roots of human love and social cohesion. London: Docamali.Google Scholar
Marrades Puig, Ana. 2017. Surrogate pregnancy within the framework of the Spanish Constitution: A matter of rights. Estudios de Deusto 65 (1): 219–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Emily. 1989. The woman in the body: A cultural analysis of reproduction. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhall, Laura. 2003. The militant suffrage movement: Citizenship and resistance in Britain, 1860–1930. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Micale, Mark. 1995. A short “history” of hysteria. In Approaching hysteria: Disease and its interpretations, ed. Micale, Mark. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Newburn, Mary, and Singh, Debbie. 2003. Creating a better birth environment. Glasgow, UK: National Childbirth Trust.Google Scholar
Oakley, Ann. 1980. Women confined: Towards a sociology of childbirth. Oxford: Martin Robertson.Google Scholar
Oakley, Ann. 1986. The captured womb: A history of the medical care of pregnant women. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Oakley, Ann. 1993. Essays on women, medicine and health. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Offen, Karen. 2000. European feminisms, 1700–1950: A political history. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Offen, Karen. 2010. Globalizing feminisms, 1789–1945 (Rewriting histories). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pérez D'Gregorio, Rogelio. 2010. Obstetric violence: A new legal term introduced in Venezuela. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 111 (3): 201–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickles, Camilla. 2020. When “assault” is not enough: Unauthorised vaginal examinations during labor and the crime of battery. In Women's birthing bodies and the law: Unathorised medical examinations, power and vulnerability, ed. Pickles, Camilla and Herring, Jonathan. Oxford: Hart Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Anne. 2013. Our bodies, whose property? Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Poullain de la Barre, François, and Frelin, P.. 1673/1989. De l'égalité des deux sexes, discours physique et moral où l'on voit l'importance de se défaire des préjugez. Paris: J. Du Puis; The equality of the two sexes. Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen.Google Scholar
Poullain de la Barre, F. 1674/1985. De l'éducation des dames pour la conduite de l'esprit dans les sciences et dans les moeurs. Paris: J. Du Puis; Toulouse: Université de Toulouse Le Mirail.Google Scholar
Recio, Adela. 2015. La atención al parto en España: Cifras para reflexionar sobre un problema [Birth care in Spain: Figures for reflection]. Dilemata, Revista Internacional de Éticas Aplicadas/International Journal of Applied Ethics 7 (18): 13–26.Google Scholar
Roome, S., Hartz, D., Tracy, S., and Welsh, A. W.. 2016. Why such differing stances? A review of position statements on home birth from professional colleges. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 123 (3): 376–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rousseau, Jacques. 2013. Emile, or, on education. Mineola, N.Y.: Calibre E-book. https://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk.Google Scholar
Ruiz Berdún, Dolores, and Olza, Ibone. 2016. The past and present of obstetric violence in Spain. In VI Jornadas Internacionais de História da Psiquiatria e Saúde Mental, ed. Pereira, Ana Leonor and Pita, João Rui. Coimbra: Universidad de Coimbra.Google Scholar
Sadler, Michelle, Santos, Mario, Ruiz-Berdún, Dolores, Rojas, Gonzalo, Skoko, Elena, et al. 2016. Moving beyond disrespect and abuse: Addressing the structural dimensions of obstetric violence. Reproductive Health Matters 24 (47): 47–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savage, Wendy. 1986. A Savage enquiry: Who controls childbirth? London: Virago.Google Scholar
Sollers, Philippe, and Mortimer, Armine. 2016. Casanova the irresistible. Urbana, Ill.: Calibre E-book. https://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk.Google Scholar
Straehle, Christine. 2016. Is there a right to surrogacy? Journal of Applied Philosophy 33 (2): 146–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teman, Elly. 2010. Birthing a mother: The surrogate body and the pregnant self. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, Gill H., Feeley, Claire T., Moran, Victoria Hall, Downe, Soo, and Oladapo, Olufemi T.. 2019. Women's experiences of pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain relief methods for labor and childbirth: A qualitative systematic review. Reproductive Health 16 (1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
United Nations (UN). 2019. Report on violence against women, its causes and consequences. A human rights-based approach to mistreatment and violence against women in reproductive health services with a focus on childbirth and obstetric violence. New York: United Nations. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3823698?ln=en.Google Scholar
Venezuela. 2007. Ley orgánica sobre el Derecho de las mujeres a una vida libre de violencia [Organic law on the Right of women to a life free of violence], April 23. https://www.acnur.org/fileadmin/Documentos/BDL/2008/6604.pdf.Google Scholar
Villarmea, Stella. 2005. Good, freedom, and happiness: A Kantian approach to autonomy and cooperation. In New women of Spain: Social political studies of feminist thought, ed. Sotelo, Elisabeth de. Münster: Lit Verlag.Google Scholar
Villarmea, Stella. 2009. Rethinking the origin: Birth and human value. In Creating a global dialogue on value inquiry, ed. Yan, Jinfen and Schrader, David. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
Villarmea, Stella. 2015a. Normatividad y praxis en el uso emancipatorio del lenguaje: aproximación desde la certeza en Wittgenstein [Normativity and praxis in the emancipatory use of language: An approach from certainty in Wittgenstein]. In Wittgenstein, la superación del escepticismo [Wittgenstein: Overcoming skepticism], ed. Chico, David Pérez and Mayoral, Juan Vicente. Madrid: Plaza y Valdés Editores.Google Scholar
Villarmea, Stella. 2015b. Controversias e innovación conceptual: una aproximación a la filosofía del nacimiento [Controversies and conceptual innovation: An approach to the philosophy of birth]. In Los retos de la filosofía en el siglo XXI [Twenty-first century challenges in philosophy], ed. Campillo, Antonio and Manzanero, Delia. Valencia: Publicacions de la Universitat de València.Google Scholar
Villarmea, Stella. 2018. Razón y útero: El debate ilustrado y la obstetricia contemporánea [Reason and uterus: The debate in the Enlightenment and contemporary obstetrics]. In Mujer, cerebro y salud [Women, brain, and health], ed. Borrego, Juana and Barroso, Carlos. Madrid: Síntesis.Google Scholar
Villarmea, Stella. 2020. When a uterus comes in the door, reason goes out the window. In Women's birthing bodies and the law: Unathorised medical examinations, power and vulnerability, ed. Pickles, Camilla and Herring, Jonathan. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Villarmea, Stella, and Kelly, Brenda. 2020. Barriers to establishing shared decision-making in childbirth: Unveiling epistemic stereotypes about women in labor. Journal of Evaluation of Clinical Practice 26 (2): 515–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villarmea, Stella, and Guillén, Francisca Fernández. 2012. Sujetos de pleno derecho: el nacimiento como tema filosófico. In Cuerpos y diferencias, ed. Sedeño, Eulalia Pérez and Ibáñez, Rebecca. Mexico City: Plaza y Valdés Editores.Google Scholar
Villarmea, Stella, and Guilló, Nuria. 2015. Epistemología en situación: nuevas aproximaciones a la relación entre mujeres y poder [Epistemology in context: New approaches to women and power]. In La guillotina del poder [The guillotine of power], ed. Branciforte, Laura María. Madrid: Plaza y Valdés.Google Scholar
Villarmea, Stella, Olza, Ibone, and Recio, Adela. 2015. On obstetrical controversies: Refocalization as conceptual innovation. In Normativity and praxis: Remarks on controversies, ed Perona, Á. J.. Milan: Mimesis International Editorial.Google Scholar
Wax, Joseph, Lee Lucas, F., Lamont, Maryanne, Pinette, Michael, and Blackstone, Jacquelyn. 2010. Maternal and newborn outcomes in planned home births vs planned hospital birth: A metaanalysis. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 203 (3): 243.e1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.05.028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (WHO). 1985. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 2 (8452): 436–37.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO). 2014. The prevention and elimination of disrespect and abuse during facility-based childbirth: WHO Statement. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/maternal_perinatal/statement-childbirth/en/.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO). 2018. WHO Recommendations: Intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/intrapartum-care-guidelines/en/.Google Scholar
Zehelein, Eva-Sabine. 2018. Reproductive justice and (the politics of) transnational gestational surrogacy. American Quarterly 70 (4): 889–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwelling, Elaine. 2002. Activist for change: An interview with Suzanne Arms. Journal of Perinatal Education 11 (4): 11–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed