MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3126445244 · doi:10.1353/ado.2014.0008

Politics of Birthmotherhood

2014· article· en· W3126445244 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kate Livingston

Notice bibliographique

RevueAdoption & Culture · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueReproductive Health and Technologies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésScholarshipGender studiesHuman sexualityReproductive rightsSociologyPoliticsFeminismInstitutionIdeologyReproductive healthSocial sciencePolitical scienceLawPopulation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Politics of Birthmotherhood By Kate Livingston Drawing from literatures relevant to the interdisciplinary field of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, this bibliography provides an introduction to the politics of birthmotherhood in the United States. Contemporary feminist scholarship on motherhood reproductive rights have insufficiently accounted for the experiences of women who lose children through adoption. Nevertheless, these bodies of literature provide important insights into the narratives, representations, institutions, and economies that shape birth motherhood in the US. The first section of this bibliography combines interdisciplinary scholarship in adoption studies and general feminist scholarship on motherhood to examine how motherhood is defined and culturally produced. With topics ranging from law to pop culture, these entries explore motherhood as a social institution and cultural construct informed by intersecting and often paradoxical ideologies of race, class, sexuality, and gender. This list focuses on American publications from the 1970s to the present, and is intended to help the reader consider how racial, class, sexual, and gender inequalities produce diverse and multiple experiences of birth parenthood in the US. Drawing primarily from feminist reproductive rights scholarship and adoption literature in law and the social sciences, the second section of this bibliography explores the relationship of birth motherhood to feminist considerations of reproductive rights and justice in the US. Readings on reproductive rights are introductory in nature and are intended to illustrate how feminist scholars have variably theorized the role of law and social policy in the regulation of women’s sexual, reproductive and maternal lives. These readings explore how the struggles over reproductive rights influence the politics of adoption in the US and how adoption is implicated in larger feminist debates over sex equality, privacy, “choice,” and the constitutional foundations of reproductive rights. Entries by and about women of color are especially important in helping readers consider the social, political, and economic conditions necessary for the exercise of rights. These critiques provide a basis for Adoption & Culture Vol. 4 (2014) 160 considering the ways in which adoption law and policy function as the racialized regulation of birthmothers’ sexuality and reproduction. The Ohio State University Birth Mothers and the Feminist Politics of Motherhood Ashe, Marie. “Postmodernism, Legal Ethics and Representation of ‘Bad Mothers’.” Mother in Law: Feminist Theory and the Legal Regulation of Motherhood. Ed. Martha Fineman. New York: Columbia UP, 1995. 142–66. Print Berebitsky, Julie. Like Our Very Own: Adoption and the Changing Culture of Motherhood, 1851–1950. Wichita, KS: U of Kansas P, 2000. Print. Bordo, Susan. “All of Us Are Real: Old Images in a New World of Adoption.” Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature 21.2 (2002): 319–31. Print. ---. “Will the ‘Real’ Parents Please Step Forward? Beyond Our Fears and Fantasies about Open Adoption.” Adoption & Culture 2 (2009): 7–34. Print. Brettschneider, Marla. The Family Flamboyant: Race Politics, Queer Families, Jewish Lives. Albany: State U of New York P, 2006. Print. Cahn, Naomi. “Birthing Relationships.” 17 Wisconsin Women’s Law Journal 17 (2002): 163–81. Print. Carp, E. Wayne. Family Matters: Secrecy and Disclosure in the History of Adoption. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1998. Print. Chodorow, Nancy, and Susan Cotratto. Feminism and Psychoanalytic Theory. New Haven: Yale UP, 1989. Print. Collins, Patricia Hill. “Black Women and Motherhood.” Black Feminist Thought. New York: Routledge, 2000. 45–68. Print. ---. “Mammies Matriarchs and Other Controlling Images.” Black Feminist Thought. New York: Routledge, 2000. 69–96. Print. ---. “Shifting the Center: Race, Class and Feminist Theorizing about Motherhood.” Glenn 45–67. Cooey, Paula. “Ordinary Mother as Oxymoron: The Collusion of Theology, Theory and Politics in the Undermining of Mothers.” Hanigsberg and Ruddick 229–49. Print. Livingston, “Politics” 161 Conway,Margaret,DavidAhern,andGertrudeSteuernagel.“Historical Background of Child Care and Family Leave Issues.” Women and Public Policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ, 2004. 180–88. Print. Commachio, Cynthia. “Motherhood in Crisis: Women, Medicine and State in Canada, 1900–1940.” Materialist Feminism. Ed. Rosemary Hennessey and Chrys Ingraham. London: Routledge, 1997. 306– 27. Print. Cornell, Drucilla. “Re-Imagining Adoption and Family Law.” Hanigsberg and Ruddick 208–28. Print. Crittenden, Ann. “The Mommy Tax.” Okazawa-Rey and Kirk 350–59. Davis, Angela. “Outcast Mothers and Surrogates: Racism and Reproductive Politics in the Nineties.” Feminist Theory: A Reader. Ed. Kolmar, 2005, 509...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,693
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,158

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,287
Écart entre enseignants0,270 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAdoption & CultureMême sujetReproductive Health and TechnologiesTravaux en français237 207