Women’s Studies 4110FA
Mother Culture: Constructions of Motherhood in Contemporary Society
Winter 2017
Dr. Jen Chisholm
Office – Ryan Building, Rm 2011
Office hours – Tuesdays and Thursdays 2:00-3:30pm
*Please feel free to drop in to my office hours or make an appointment*
Email –[email protected]
Phone –(807)343-8059
Class: Tuesdays & Thursdays, 5:30-7pm
Location: ATAC 5041
The meaning and value of motherhood/mothering has been a topic of passionate personal and
political debate for centuries. In keeping with women’s historical exclusion from the public
sphere, politics and education, the topic of motherhood and mothering has only recently gained
scholarly attention. In this course we will examine emergent feminist scholarship on
motherhood, with particular attention paid to the distinction between motherhood as a social
imperative, or patriarchal “institution" (as described by Adrianne Rich), and the agential practice
of mothering, as defined by feminist scholars (Andrea O’Reilly, Fiona Green and others). From
this theoretical grounding, we will explore constructions of the good vs bad mother, conceptual
and legal definitions of personhood, childless/child free women, nationalism, neoliberalism,
technology and the future of mothering. In this course, we take as a given our collective
relationship to motherhood/mothering (as mothers, daughters, sons, partners, humans) and seek
to explore our own positionality with greater depth and analysis.
Required Texts: All Readings will be made available to students through our course D2L page.
Assignments:
Participation
Discussion Facilitation
Moot Court Presentation
Moot Court Reflection Paper
Final Essay
25%
15%
15%
15%
30%
Evaluated throughout the semester
To be scheduled in class
Due in class February 28th/March 2nd
Due March 16th
Due April 7th
Learning Outcomes
At the end of this course you should be able to:
* distinguish between theoretical conceptions of motherhood and mothering
* demonstrate an understanding of the social construction of the good mother/bad mother
dichotomy
* analyze the influence of patriarchy, neoliberalism, capitalism, nationalism and intersectionality
on our understanding of motherhood/mothering
1
* develop a nuanced understanding of legal conceptions and arguments relating to fetal
personhood and child welfare
Skills Outcomes
At the end of this course you should be able to:
* written and oral communication
* analytical skills and self reflection
* developing sound arguments for debate
A note on participation and discussions:
Discussions require that everyone participates (speaks and listens) in a meaningful and
civil way. Please be aware that some of the material we are reading is of a sensitive nature. Some
readings may be upsetting or disturbing. I ask that we all use respectful language and be sensitive
of one another during our discussions. Personal attacks, gender and racial slurs, disrespectful
comments on ability or able-bodiness, or other such disrespectful behaviour will not be tolerated.
Please keep in mind that this is a scholarly environment and professionalism is expected at all
times. In this course we will deal with many sensitive issues and may encounter historical
language no longer appropriate. Please be reminded that respect for the people we study and
other students is essential to a productive discussion. Disrespectful behaviour and/or comments
about people in class or being studied will not be tolerated.
On Campus Help Available to Students:
Student Success Centre: Additional help regarding academic matters can be found at the Student
Success Centre located in SC 0008 or phone 343-8018 or online at - HYPERLINK "http://
academicadvising.lakeheadu.ca/" http://academicadvising.lakeheadu.ca/
Student Accessibility Services: For assistance with accommodations for a disability, please visit
Student Accessibility Services located in SC 0003 or phone 343-8047 or online at HYPERLINK "http://learningassistance.lakeheadu.ca/" http://learningassistance.lakeheadu.ca/
Student Health and Counselling Centre: For help with personal and/or medical issues, please
visit the Student Health and Counselling Centre located in the University Centre 1007 (across
from Security) or phone 343-8361 or online at - HYPERLINK "http://
healthservices.lakeheadu.ca/" http://healthservices.lakeheadu.ca/
2
Assignment Guidelines - General
Note: Assignments will also be discussed in class.
A Note on Submitting Assignments: All assignments must be submitted in hard copy, in class,
on the due date. If you require alternate arrangements, please contact Dr Chisholm in advance of
the due date to work out an alternative.
Late Policy: Assignments received after the due date will be penalized 5% per day. Requests for
extensions must be made prior to the due date and will ONLY be given in extenuating
circumstances and may require documentation (e.g. a doctor’s note). Extensions will not be
granted where good time management skills could have avoided the problem; i.e. extensions will
not be granted for students who have a number of assignments due at the same time during the
semester or for students who have decided to take an overload of classes this semester.
Style and grammar: Marks are not directly deducted for poor writing style and grammar.
However, you simply cannot achieve a good grade if the paper is difficult to read and the
argument difficult to discern. It is essential to proofread.
Referencing: Assignments must be entirely your own work. If the exact words or phrases of
another author are used they must be in quotation marks with an accompanying reference.
Material that is paraphrased – that is, an idea from another author but put into your own words –
must also be accompanied by a properly formatted citation. Please use appropriate style (either
MLA, APA or Chicago) in a consistent manner throughout the paper. References are essential
and have four purposes: (1) they indicate the source of the “quotations,” (2) acknowledge the
interpretations and ideas of others, (3) provide authority for facts which might be challenged or
result from the research of others, and (4) point to other sources or interpretations of the same
topic. In general, references acknowledge the use of another person’s ideas and are essential in
avoiding plagiarism. Failure to provide adequate references constitutes plagiarism.
Plagiarism and Academic Dishonesty:
Plagiarism is a serious academic offence. Presenting an idea, words or an exact phrase of
another author as your own work constitutes plagiarism. All students are required to know what
constitutes plagiarism and how to avoid it. If you have questions about what constitutes
plagiarism you can consult the Lakehead University calendar available online: "http://
calendar.lakeheadu.ca/current/contents/regulations/univeregsIXacdishon.html"http://
calendar.lakeheadu.ca/current/contents/regulations/univeregsIXacdishon.html or the professor.
All cases of plagiarism will be dealt with in accordance with the Code of Student Behaviour and
Disciplinary Procedures approved by Senate and the Board of Governors. Other instances of
Academic Dishonesty, including but not limited to double submission, purchasing of
assignments (either online or from another student on campus), or copying of assignments will
also dealt with in accordance to the University regulations on Academic Dishonesty. Students
may obtain a copy of the “Code of Student Behaviour and Disciplinary Procedures” from the
Office of the Registrar for more information. Please do your own work.
3
Specific Assignment Guidelines
Participation (25%):
Your voice is important!
Seminar classes require a significant amount of class discussion and participation. This is
a time for you to work through your ideas and questions in a group setting, with the insights of
your classmates. Participation from all members of the group is crucial if a discussion is to be
both interesting and instructive. Discussion requires preparation which includes reading the
articles and thinking critically about them before attending class. It is necessary that students
critically read the materials in advance so they are fully prepared to speak about and ask
questions about the readings. Participation marks are based on active involvement in the
discussion and on the content of the student's comments.
Participation marks are broken down into two categories: attendance and active
engagement. Attendance accounts for only 10% of the cumulative 25%, meaning if you attend
class but do not participate (discuss, ask questions, respond) you are only able to receive up to
10% for your effort. The remaining 15% of the participation grade is reserved for active
engagement - coming to class prepared to discuss the readings, ask questions, respond to your
peers, make connections with other material or experiences. A seminar class only works when we
are all participating!
Discussion Facilitation (15%)
Due throughout term
Each student will be assigned (through their choosing) a class in which they are
responsible for an explanation of the reading(s) and facilitation of discussion. This will involve:
* preparing a bit of background about the readings (a summary and analysis of author’s main
points)
* questions for class discussion (thoughtful questions that engage with the key points of the
week’s readings and/or questions that take up topics/readings/speakers we looked at previous
points throughout the term)
* optional: related materials, relevant to the topic/discussion such as newspaper articles/websites/
blog posts/video/etc.
Students will present their summaries and facilitate class discussion on the date they are
assigned.
Each student must submit a written copy of their discussion notes, including article
summaries/analysis, discussion questions (with responses to those questions by the author) and
any related materials used (optional). The written summary is to be submitted in class, the day of
the discussion facilitation. The length of these summaries will vary, though with each component
accounted for, papers will likely be between 6-10pgs.
A schedule will be decided on in class with student input. A finalized schedule of facilitators will
be posted on D2L for reference. I will lead the first discussion facilitation on Thursday, January
12th as a model for students on how to approach the assignment.
4
Class Moot - 15%
February 28th or March 2nd, 2017
This activity is adopted from the practice of mooting in law schools, which is designed to
engage the class with the myriad legal difficulties in hearing cases involving fetal personhood
and child welfare. A moot is a mock court exercise where students argue the sides of actual
Canadian legal cases. The class will be split into pairs, assigned a specific case and the side they
will argue for - the Crown or the Defense. The cases and sides will be assigned at random.
Students will receive a description of their case, including all the information and details
provided when the case was originally heard in court. It is expected that students will develop an
argument based on course material and class discussion to date. The rest of the class will hear
both sides of the case, and be given an opportunity to consider their points, after which the class
will issue a “ruling”. Because each decision will be highly personal, each student or “judge” will
be given one vote. The side with the most votes will be ruled in favour of.
After each case is heard, and a ruling is made, there will be space for discussion and a
description of the actual findings of the legal case within the Canadian court system.
Students will be graded on the strength of their argument, and how well you tie the
details of the case to course materials and discussion. Given that the cases and sides will be
assigned at random, it is likely that some students will be in a position where they must argue for
a side they do not necessarily agree with. This presents us with the opportunity to better
understand the complexities of such cases, and hopefully develop a greater sense of empathy for
the ethical, personal and legal difficulties present for women as mothers.
In the spirit of mooting at the law school level, at the end of the “court proceedings” I
will ask students to vote anonymously for two “Distinguished Speaker” awards, to be given to
students who provide the best/most challenging/most innovative/well articulated argument.
Those students will receive a certificate, a small prize and the great distinction of being voted
“Distinguished Speaker”! We will discuss this assignment in more detail in class.
Each student will submit a written version of their argument, via email, on the day of
their presentation (Feb 28/Mar 2). Each summary will be posted on D2L for other students’
reference, in order to complete the reflection assignment described below.
Moot Court Reflection - 15%
Due in class March 16th, 2017
Each student will choose a case from the moot court exercise (excluding the case argued
by the student) and write a short reflection on their own “ruling” for the case. To do this, you will
be provided with a written version of the arguments offered by your classmates, to review and
engage with in your written description. Drawing on specific points within the arguments
presented, students will explain their agreement/disagreement with Crown or Defence, and relate
your understanding to course concepts and course material.
Reflection papers should be about 1500 words (4-6 double spaced pages), written in full
sentence, using formal, academic language (though essay style is not required), including proper
citations.
5
Final Essay - 30%
Due April 7th, 2017
Students will submit a 12-15 page paper on a course-related topic of your choice. The
final essay is intended for students to critically engage with course concepts, offer critique and
analysis, and develop an argument or standpoint. Papers must integrate at least two (2) course
readings and four (4) or more outside sources. You are welcome to reference news media, films
and television, or current events, however this does not take the place of the four (4) academic
sources required. You may take this opportunity to examine a topic we’ve covered in more depth,
or you may choose to write about a related topic that we did not cover in class.
Students are strongly encouraged to discuss their topics with the professor. Papers will be
evaluated based on quality of argument, originality and use of sources. Students should not be
concerned with whether the instructor agrees with their standpoint, argument or position, but
rather that their arguments are well-articulated and properly supported by source material and
citation.
Weekly Reading Schedule
Week 1: Introduction to Course; Motherhood (as Institution) vs Mothering (as
Practice)
Tues. Jan 10th:
Rich, A. (1986). Forward. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution.
W.W Norton & Company: New York. pgs. 11-17.
Thurs. Jan 12th:
Rich, A. (1986). The “Sacred Calling”. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and
Institution. W.W Norton & Company: New York. pgs. 41-55.
Rich, A. (1986). The Kingdom of the Fathers. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as
Experience and Institution. W.W Norton & Company: New York. pgs. 56-83.
Week 2: Motherhood (as Institution) vs Mothering (as Practice)
Tues. Jan 17th:
Ruddick, S. (1990). Maternal Thinking. Feminist Studies. Vol. 6(2). pgs. 342-367.
Thurs. Jan 19th:
O’Reilly, A. (2008). Introduction. In O’Reilly (Ed). Feminist Mothering. State University
of New York Press: Albany. pgs. 1-20.
Kinser, A. (2008). Mothering as Relational Consciousness. In O’Reilly (Ed). Feminist
Mothering. State University of New York Press: Albany. pgs. 123-140.
6
Week 3: Reproductive Labour
Tues. Jan 24th:
Maher, J. (2004). Skills, Not Attributes: Rethinking Mothering as Work. Journal of the
Association for Research on Mothering. Vol. 6(2). pgs. 7-16.
Bryan, C. (2014). Multiplying Mothers: Migration and the Work of Mothering in Canada
and the Philippines. In Vandenbeld Giles, M. (Ed). Mothering in the Age of
Neoliberalism. Demeter Press: Toronto. pgs. 15-49.
Thurs. Jan 26th:
Sawicki, J. (1999). Disciplining Mothers: Feminism and the New Reproductive
Technologies. In Price, J. & Shildrick, M. (Eds.). Feminist Theory and the Body: A
Reader. Rutledge: New York. pgs. 67-94.
Week 4: Concepts of Personhood
Tues. Jan 31st.:
Petchesky, R. (1980). Reproductive Freedom: Beyond “A Woman’s Right to Choose”.
Signs. Vol.5(4). pgs. 661-685.
Thurs. Feb 2nd:
Davies, J. (2009). Premature (M)othering: Levinasian Ethics and the Politics of Fetal
Ultrasound Imaging. In Campbell, S., Meynell, L. & Sherwin, S (Eds.). Embodiment and
Agency. Pennsylvania University Press: Philadelphia. pgs. 184-210.
Parsons, K. (2010). Feminist Reflections on Miscarriage in Light of Abortion. International
Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics. Vol. 3(1). pgs. 1-22.
Week 5: Legal Constructions of Personhood
Tues. Feb 7th:
Weir, L. (2006). Legal Fiction and Reality Effects: Evidence of Perinatal Risk. Pregnancy, Risk
and Biopolitics: On the Threshold of the Living Subject. Routledge: New York. pgs. 115-142.
Thurs. Feb 9th:
Weir. L. (2006). Child Welfare at the Perinatal Threshold. Pregnancy, Risk and Biopolitics: On
the Threshold of the Living Subject. Routledge: New York. pgs. 143-180.
Week 6: Colonizing Motherhood: Value, Control and Consequence
Tues. Feb 14th:
Tabobondung, R., Wolfe, S., Smylie, J., Senese, L., Blais, G. (2014). Indigenous Midwifery as an
Expression of Sovereignty. In Lovell-Harvard, M. & Anderson, K. (Eds.). Mothers of the Nations:
Indigenous Mothering as Global Resistance, Reclaiming and Recovery. Demeter Press: Toronto.
pgs. 71-87.
7
Fontaine, L., Forbes, L., Wendy McNab, W., Murdock, L. & Stout, R. (2014). Nimamamasak:
The Legacy of First Nations Women Honouring Motherhood. In Lovell-Harvard, M. & Anderson,
K. (Eds.). Mothers of the Nations: Indigenous Mothering as Global Resistance, Reclaiming and
Recovery. Demeter Press: Toronto. pgs. 251-266.
Thurs. Feb 16th:
*Angela Davis
Feb 22-24 READING WEEK NO CLASSES
Feb 28-Mar 2 Week 7: Class Moot Court
Week 8: Choice(?): Constructions of Non-motherhood
Tues. Mar 7th:
Kelly, M. (2009). Women’s Voluntary Childlessness: A Radical Rejection of Motherhood?.
Women’s Studies Quarterly. Vol. 37(3). pgs. 157-172.
Letherby, G. & Williams, C. (1999). Non-Motherhood: Ambivalent Autobiographies. Feminist
Studies. Vol. 25(3). pgs. 719-747.
Thurs. Mar 9th:
Tyler May, E. (1998). Non mothers as Bad Mothers: Infertility and the “Maternal Instinct”. In
Ladd-Taylor, M. & Umansky, L. (Eds.). “Bad” Mothers: The Politics of Blame in TwentiethCentury America. New York University Press: New York. pgs.198-219.
Week 9: “Good Motherhood”: Mothering, Materiality and The Myth of White,
Middle-class Motherhood
Tues. Mar 14th:
Fletcher, R. (2006). Reproductive Consumption. Feminist Theory. Vol. 7(1). pgs. 27-47.
Voigt, C. & Laing, J.H. (2010). Journey Into Parenthood: Commodification of Reproduction as a
New Tourism Niche Market. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing. Vol. 27. pgs. 252-268.
Thurs. Mar 16th:
Anderson, G. & Moore. J.G. (2014). “Doing It All…and Making It Look Easy!”: Yummy
Mummies, Mompreneurs and the North American Neoliberal Crises of the Home. In Vandenbeld
Giles, M. (Ed). Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism. Demeter Press: Toronto. pgs. 95-115.
Week 10: Mother of the Nation: Nationalism and the Maternal Patriot
Tues. Mar 21st:
Ikas, K. (2005). “Pax Materna” or Mothers at War with the Empire?: Canadian and Australian
Perspectives on the Motherhood Debate in the British Empire During the Great War. In O’Reilly,
A., Porter, M. & Short, P. (Eds.). Motherhood: Power and Oppression. Women’s Press: Toronto.
pgs. 77-96.
8
Ditrich, T. (2005). Human and Divine Mothers in Hinduism. In O’Reilly, A., Porter, M. & Short,
P. (Eds.). Motherhood: Power and Oppression. Women’s Press: Toronto. pgs. 137-151.
Thurs. Mar 23rd:
Herbst, A. (2013). Welfare Mom as Warrior Mom: Discourse in the 2003 Single Mothers Protest
in Israel. Journal of Social Policy. Vol. 42(1). pgs. 129-145.
Week 11: “Bad Motherhood” - Mothering on the margins
Tues. Mar 28th:
Terry, J. (1998). “Momism” and the Making of Treasonous Homosexuals. In Ladd-Taylor, M. &
Umansky, L. (Eds.). “Bad” Mothers: The Politics of Blame in Twentieth-Century America. New
York University Press: New York. pgs. 169-190.
Kuttai, H. (2010). Inaccessibility. Maternity Rolls: Pregnancy, Childbirth and Disability.
Fernwood Publishing: Halifax. pgs. 93-107.
Thurs. Mar 30th:
Appell, A. R. (1998). On Fixing “Bad” Mothers and Saving Their Children. In Ladd-Taylor, M.
& Umansky, L. (Eds.). “Bad” Mothers: The Politics of Blame in Twentieth-Century America.
New York University Press: New York. pgs. 356-380.
Week 12: Future Mothering: Technology and Reproductive Justice
Tues. Apr 4th:
Cattapan, A. (2013). Rhetoric and Reality: “Protecting” Women in Canadian Public Policy on
Assisted Human Reproduction. Canadian Journal of Women & the Law. Vol. 25(2). pgs. 202-220.
van de Weil, L. (2015). Frozen in Anticipation: Eggs for Later. Women’s Studies International
Forum. Vol. 53. pgs. 119-128.
Thurs. Apr 6th:
Rudrappa, S. (2015). Introduction: Markets in Life. Discounted Life: The Price of Global
Surrogacy in India. New York University Press: New York. pgs. 1-19.
*Final Papers Due April 7th, 2017*
9