|
|
Who’s Your Daddy: The
Problem of Paternity-Dependent
Contraception |
|
‘In a MOLT minute’ ~ If a study analyses menstrual hut usage in terms of reproductive interest, shouldn’t it also analyze the practice of female genital cutting? Both are related to reproduction. |
Author: Geneva Kachman
|
|
In 1961, Louis Henry
defined “natural fertility populations” as those in which couples do not
practice parity-dependent contraception. Such contraception limits the number
of times a woman is “parous,” or bears viable offspring, depending on the total
number of offspring desired by the couple.
Therefore, in a natural fertility population, “…couples do not attempt
to limit family size…” [Strassmann 1992] However, it may be that certain populations currently categorized as “natural fertility” do engage in practices exhibiting a degree of contraceptive intent sufficient to propel them out of the “natural fertility” category, and into a new, intermediate category, that of “paternity-dependent contracepting population”. |
|
Dogon woman working, 1980s Strassmann, personal UM page |
|
In Beverly Strassmann’s
1990 dissertation, “The Reproductive Ecology of the Dogon of Mali,” she lists a
number of “cultural tactics for promoting paternal certainty, referencing
Dickemann’s “important review of this subject (1979)…”:
“Particular
examples include chastity belts, public display of the nuptial sheets, purdah,
restricting female mobility through foot-binding, punishment for adultery, and
clitoredectomy. These mechanisms either physically sequester females from male
contact or provide disincentives for sexual behavior through punishment, the
idealization of chastity or the reduction of libido.”
Strassmann proceeds to
“test the hypothesis that Dogon menstrual huts promote confidence of
paternity,” that is, should be included in the above list of “cultural
tactics.” Indeed, in an abbreviated version of Strassmann’s dissertation
published in 1997, she explains that:
“In
brief, the menstrual taboos of the Dogon are a male tactic for eliciting honest
signals of female reproductive status. When a woman visits a menstrual hut, all
members of her husband’s patrilineage learn that she is neither pregnant nor in
amenorrhea and that she will soon be ready to conceive. Information about the
timing of conception is used in paternity assessments (Strassmann 1992,
1996b).”
Strassmann also makes use
of the phrase “protecting the genetic integrity of patrilineages” to describe
the function of menstrual huts. This is more precise, from the standpoint of
evolutionary theory, than the more commonly used “promot[ing] confidence of
paternity,” “confidence” being essentially a cognitive state.
Even more precision can be
attained by identifying exactly how the “genetic integrity of patrilineages” is
“protected,” that is, by preventing the conception of offspring with the wrong
(i.e., extrapatralineal) genes. Working from this definition, menstrual hut
usage among the Dogon in the 1980s, when Strassmann lived with them and
collected her data, becomes replete with contraceptive intent, not on
the part of couples practicing parity-dependent contraception,
but rather, on the part of patrilineages practicing paternity-dependent
contraception.
Indeed, those populations
availing themselves of any of the above-mentioned “cultural tactics” for “promoting
confidence of paternity,” can now be placed into this new category of
paternity-dependent contracepting populations, intermediate between those true
“natural fertility” populations which do not practice even
paternity-dependent contraception, and controlled fertility populations which
practice parity-dependent contraception.
|
Uncontrolled
Fertility (“natural”) |
Controlled Fertility |
|||
|
No
contraception used at all |
t r a n s i t i o n |
Paternity-dependent contracepting population chastity
belts, public display of the nuptial sheets, purdah, restricting female
mobility through foot-binding, punishment for adultery, menstrual huts, clitoredectomy |
t r a n s i t i o n |
Parity (or parity/paternity)-dependent contracepting population traditional
methods*, diaphragm,
condom, pill, injection,
patch, IUD |
|
TIMELINE for a given population
|
||||
|
AVERAGE NUMBER OF OFFSPRING PER WOMAN for a given population |
||||
Further refinement of
Louis Henry’s contraceptive categories, as shown in the above chart, impacts
the menstrual suppressionists’ argument for a “new reproductive paradigm” in a
number of different ways.
One is that the concept of
what is “natural,” vis a vis the human female reproductive pattern, gets pushed
further back in time. The Dogon villagers Strassmann lived with and studied in
the 1980s were sedentary agriculturalists numbering 460 in total population.
They practiced menstrual taboos involving menstrual huts as well as
clitoredectomy on girls between the ages of 3-5 (Strassmann, email comm), and
thus could be considered a controlled fertility / paternity-dependent
contracepting population twice over.
Certainly the Dogon
forebears who were foragers, who lived in smaller groupings of 25 or so, and
who did not yet use menstrual huts or undergo cliterodectomy, had a
reproductive pattern more “natural” than that observed in the 1980s by
Strassmann. One could go further, and argue that the reproductive pattern of
the earliest hominids, more than a million years ago, was most “natural” of
all.
One could also argue that
any human reproductive pattern is just as “natural” as any other, given the
fundamental “unnaturalness” of the human species, relative to other
species on the planet. If cognitive and behavioral plasticity are “natural” for
humans, then it may be reasonable to argue that reproductive plasticity is just
as “natural” as well.
In fact, the qualifier
“natural” is scientifically meaningless. If it were not, then we should be able
to scientifically determine which is more “natural” – a menstruating Dogon
woman going to a menstrual hut; an amenorrheic Egyptian woman receiving a
scheduled Depo-Provera injection; a Canadian woman not currently sexually
active starting her period; or an American woman on birth control pills
starting a withdraw bleed.
Perhaps the most
scientifically-valid statement that can be made about the above four examples,
is that together they demonstrate the reproductive plasticity of the human
species.
Therefore, menstrual
suppressionists’ appeal to “naturalness” is scientifically invalid, and one
might argue, irresponsible, given the history of how concepts of “naturalness”
have been used to buttress the rationale for exploitative and oppressive
policies, “right in the Dogon’s own backyard,” so to speak, in Mali, West
Africa.
WRITE YOUR OWN INTRO:
1) Dogon were queried as
to their religious affiliation (i.e., Animist; Protestant; Catholic; Moslem; no
religion). Strassmann writes:
“Two
important differences are that men are more likely to identify with animism and
women are more likely to reject all religions. A common statement from the
women is: “What does it matter, won’t my work be the same?”
In writing your intro to
“Is Menstruation Obsolete?,” start with this sentence: “What does menstrual
suppression matter, won’t my work be the same?”
2) The Dogon women in the 1980s
were found to have on average 8.6+/- 0.3 offspring. Yet, some of the Dogon
women were “subfecund” and visited the menstrual hut regularly. In the United
States, women currently have on average 1.8 offspring – yet some have none, and
others have many more, sometimes multiple births through the use of fertility
drugs.
In your intro, discuss
menstrual suppression in terms of reproductive plasticity. Read up a bit on
cognitive and behavioral plasticity before starting to write.
|
Go to "Peony in a Coffee Cup: The
Problem of Secondary Utility" |
|
Return to "Write Your Own Intro
Index" |
X
|
From Protection to
Expression: The Future of Menstrual Advertising |
Menstrual Monday |
Broken Tampon Memorial
Fountain |
||||
Menovulography:
the years from puberty to menopause, told as a story with pictures
|
|||||||
|
|
Contact MOLT
|
||||||
“MOLT minute” graphic courtesy of http://www.clipart.co.uk/