Despite the growing routinization of prenatal diagnosis, little research has examined men's roles in this reproductive arena or these technologies' possibilities for reinforcing or transforming gender roles and relations. The authors analyze male partners' participation in the amniocentesis decisions of Mexican-origin women at high risk for problems, drawing on interviews with 157 women and 120 of their male partners. The primary aim is to explore whether the normalization of prenatal testing poses a threat to women's autonomy in this decision arena. The findings challenge critics of new reproductive and genetic technologies who assume that these technologies inherently represent male attempts to control women's bodies and the processes of reproduction. In contrast, the authors find many couples try to balance their desire to share equally in parenting responsibilities while maintaining the woman's ultimate control over her body and decisions associated with it.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arditti, R., R. Duelli-Klein, and S. Minden. 1984. Test-tube women: What future for motherhood? London: Pandora.
2.
Baca Zinn, M. 1980. Employment and education of Mexican-American women: The interplay of modernity and ethnicity in eight families. Harvard Educational Review50 (1): 47-62.
3.
Baca Zinn, M. 1995. Social science theorizing for Latino families in the age of diversity. In Understanding Latino families, edited by R. E. Zambrana. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
Browner, C. H. 2000. Situating women's reproductive activities. American Anthropologist102 (4): 733-788.
5.
Browner, C. H., and E. Lewin. 1982. Female altruism revisited: The virgin Mary as economic woman. American Ethnologist9 (1): 61-75.
6.
Browner, C. H., and H. M. Preloran. 1999. Male partners role in Latinas amniocentesis decisions. Journal of Genetic Counseling8:85-107.
7.
Browner, C. H., and N. Press. 1995. The normalization of prenatal diagnostic testing. In The politics of reproduction: The global politics of reproduction, edited by F. Ginsburg and R. Rapp. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8.
Browner, C. H., and N. Press. 1996. The production of authoritative knowledge in American prenatal care. Medical Anthropology Quarterly19:141-156.
9.
California Department of Health Services. 1995. Genetic disease branch. Vital statistics of California, 1994. Unpublished manuscript, Berkeley.
10.
California Department of Health Services. 1998. Genetic disease branch. The California alpha-fetoprotein screening program. Unpublished manuscript, Berkeley.
11.
Corea, G. 1985. The mother machine: Reproductive technologies from artificial insemination to the artificial womb. New York: Harper and Row.
12.
Corea, G., et al. 1987. Man-made women: How new reproductive technologies affect women. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
13.
Cromwell, R. E., and R. A. Ruiz. 1979. The myth of macho dominance in decision making within Mexican and Chicano families. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences1:355-373.
14.
Cunningham, G. C. 1998. An evaluation of California's public-private maternal serum screening program. Los Angeles: Ninth International Conference on Prenatal Diagnosis and Therapy.
15.
Daniels, C. 1997. Between fathers and fetuses: The social construction of male reproduction and the politics of fetal harm. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society22:580-616.
16.
Glaser, B. G., and A. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
17.
Heymann, J. 2000. The widening gap: Why America's working families are in jeopardy and what can be done about it. New York: Basic Books.
18.
Hirsch, J. S. 1999. En el Norte la mujer Manda: Gender, generation, and geography in a Mexican transnational community. American Behavioral Scientist42:1332-1349.
19.
Hochschild, A. R. 1989. The second shift. New York: Avon Books.
20.
Hurtardo, A. 1995. Variations, combinations, and evolutions. In Understanding Latino families, edited by R. E. Zambrana. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
Kolker, A., and B. M. Burke. 1994. Prenatal testing: A sociological perspective. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
22.
Lorber, J. 1998. Paradoxes of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23.
Lorber, J., and L. Bandlamudi. 1993. The dynamics of marital bargaining in male infertility. Gender & Society7 (1): 32-49.
24.
Markens, S., C. H. Browner, and N. Press. 1999. “Because of the risks”: How U.S. pregnant women account for refusing prenatal screening. Social Science and Medicine49:359-369.
25.
National Committee on Pay Equity. 2001. The wage gap: Myths and facts. In Race, class, and gender in the United States, edited by P. Rothenberg. New York: Worth.
26.
Petchesky, R. 1984. Abortion and woman's choice: The state, sexuality and reproductive freedom. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
27.
Preloran, M. H., C. H. Browner, and E. Leiber. 2001. Strategies for motivating Latino couples' participation in qualitative health research. American Journal of Public Health91:1832-1841.
28.
Press, J., and E. Townsley. 1998. Wives' and husbands' housework reporting: Gender, class and social desirability. Gender & Society12 (2): 188-218.
29.
Press, N., and C. H. Browner. 1997. Why women say yes to prenatal screening. Social Science and Medicine45:979-989.
30.
Ragoné, H. 1994. Surrogate motherhood: Conception in the heart. Boulder, CO: Westview.
31.
Rapp, R. 1999. Testing women, testing the fetus: The social impact of amniocentesis in America. New York: Routledge.
32.
Rothman, B. K. 1986. The tentative pregnancy: Prenatal diagnosis and the future of motherhood. New York: Viking Penguin.
33.
Rothman, B. K. 1989. Recreating motherhood: Ideology and technology in a patriarchal society. New York: Norton.
34.
Sandelowski, M. 1993. With child in mind: Studies of the personal encounter with infertility. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
35.
Sandelowski, M. 1994. Separate, but less unequal: Fetal ultrasonography and the transformation of expectant mother/fatherhood. Gender & Society8:230-245.
36.
Schover, L. R., A. J. Thomas, T. Falcone, M. Attaran, and J. Goldberg. 1998. Attitudes about genetic risk of couples undergoing in-vitro fertilization. Human Reproduction13 (4): 862-866.
37.
Vega, W. 1995. The study of Latino families. In Understanding Latino families, edited by R. E. Zambrana. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
West, C., and D. Zimmerman. 1987. Doing gender. Gender & Society1:125-151.
39.
Ybarra, L. 1982. When wives work: The impact on the Chicano family. Journal of Marriage and the Family44:169-178.
