IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v348y2024ics0277953624002697.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The biomedicalization of pregnancy prevention, neoliberal feminism, and college women's experiences of the contraceptive paradox

Author

Listed:
  • Mann, Emily S.
  • Bertotti, Andrea M.

Abstract

Research examining the “contraceptive paradox” has illuminated how contraception can be a source of empowerment for some and oppression for others. This study advances theorizing of the contraceptive paradox by illustrating how 45 young women experience contraception as both liberating and constraining due to a confluence of biomedicalization processes, gender inequality, and neoliberal feminism. Drawing on focus group data, we find that the biomedicalization of pregnancy prevention and neoliberal feminist discourse, in combination with experiences of social and economic privilege and gender inequality in fertility work, shape participants’ interpretation of contraceptive technology as a key resource for individually liberating themselves from undesired pregnancy. At the same time, their experiences indicate prescription contraception plays an oppressive role in their lives. In addition to blaming themselves and their bodies for negative contraceptive side effects, participants take for granted that assuming sole responsibility for contraceptive use in their relationships with men is the price they must pay to feel free. The findings indicate that addressing a social problem using an individualized biomedical solution obscures the power that structural inequalities exert over pregnancy-capable people, including relatively privileged young women. As an expression of biopower, these dynamics prompted participants to emphasize distributive justice over social justice, foreclosing their engagement in collective action.

Suggested Citation

  • Mann, Emily S. & Bertotti, Andrea M., 2024. "The biomedicalization of pregnancy prevention, neoliberal feminism, and college women's experiences of the contraceptive paradox," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 348(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:348:y:2024:i:c:s0277953624002697
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116825
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624002697
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116825?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bertotti, Andrea M. & Mann, Emily S. & Miner, Skye A., 2021. "Efficacy as safety: Dominant cultural assumptions and the assessment of contraceptive risk," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manzer, Jamie L. & Bell, Ann V., 2022. "The limitations of patient-centered care: The case of early long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) removal," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:348:y:2024:i:c:s0277953624002697. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.