Abstract
Infertility is stereotyped as a medical problem that primarily happens to white, wealthy women who are “desperate” for a child. It is this caricature of the “desperate infertile” that anthropologist Kristin J. Wilson hopes to overcome. Rather than examine infertility treatment-seekers as researchers have done in the past, Wilson studies those who are “not trying” and “prefer to let life unfold.”
To achieve what Wilson calls a “more liberating way of thinking about infertility and childlessness” (p. 7), she interviews 25 women who belong to “socially marginalized groups” and are “off course” in terms of meeting pronatalist expectations of motherhood (p. 7). She examines their stories in eight well-written chapters. She begins the book by describing her own personal struggle with reproduction, which adds richness and validity to the piece. Chapter one then focuses on infertility, including its stereotypes, problematic definitions, and medicalization. The second chapter provides a comprehensive historical analysis of stratified reproduction, pronatalism, and medicalization. The remaining chapters contain the bulk of the analysis and center on the theme of motherhood. Within them, Wilson explores the meanings of motherhood for women who do not fit the Standard North American Family (SNAF), the ambiguity around deciding to become a mother, the inability to control such decisions, the realization of one’s childless state, and the “choice” to (not) use medicine to assist in childbearing.
Wilson does a superb job at demonstrating flaws in the definition of infertility, its subjective rather than objective nature. She also successfully overcomes and breaks down the dichotomy of the voluntary versus involuntary childless woman, instead revealing the fluidity of reproduction and the (in)decisions surrounding it. Interestingly, despite Wilson’s goal to dismantle stereotypes and generalizations, it is precisely her own generalizing throughout the book that is its most substantial weakness. For instance, there is significant diversity among the 25 women Wilson interviewed, yet she generalizes her findings and conclusions. Among the participants interviewed are older lesbian women, women in their late teens who are just not ready to have children, and “infertile” women who currently or previously tried to become pregnant. “Not trying” means different things to these different women, but that gets lost in the unified story that Wilson tries to tell. Wilson herself falls victim to the stereotypes of medicalized infertility by conflating “trying” with medicine (p. 167): “[the participants] cast sidelong glances at the available [medical] interventions that would purport to restore a childless or infertile woman to normal by making her a mother. By not trying, they forge an easier path, one that is less crushing.” Many of the women in Wilson’s book, however, are trying, beyond the scope of medicine. For example, both Emily and Georgia are getting certified as foster parents and are seriously considering adoption.
Wilson purposefully sought a diverse group of participants, resulting in a rich sample of women who vary by age, race, ethnicity, sexuality, marital status, and occupation. Wilson, however, does not thoroughly explore how such factors shaped the women’s experiences. For instance, Wilson introduces the idea of ascribed motherhood in chapter five with Penny and Jennifer, both of whom are Latina, yet she does not examine how their ethnicity contributes to their fatalistic perspectives.
In addition to varying by demographic characteristics, the sample also varies by what Wilson calls “fertility/motherhood status.” Some women are infertile, while others are childless (but not due to any reproductive difficulty). Wilson’s focus on infertility downplays such diversity. Her primary aim is to overcome the “desperate infertile” stereotype by revealing “stories of how most infertile women, those who avoid medical intervention, handle childlessness.” Yet, only 13 of her participants are infertile, two of whom underwent in vitro fertilization. Rather than frame the book with a focus on infertility, it would have been more accurate for Wilson to set it up more generally as a book about motherhood among women who do not have children. Doing so would reveal Wilson’s unique and important story of the ambiguity of reproduction and that “in-between place” where women neither choose nor reject the idea of having children.
Telling this broader story of reproduction allows Wilson to not just tackle the stereotypes of infertility but also those of reproduction and motherhood. While it would have been ideal to have not fallen victim to those stereotypes herself, Wilson created a superb text for courses on reproduction and family.