On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Katha Pollitt wrote:
> Well, you write that you are obsessed with having another child in the
> next five years. Don't know exactly how old you are, but doesn't the
> deadline -- and the obsession -- relate to your female biological clock?
> If you were a man, you could be a bit more relaxed. Especially since as
> a single person, you as a man could find a young fertile woman and have
> that second child after you got tenure!
> Don't you think it matters that girls sexually mature earlier than
> boys (or, if you prefer, boys mature later than girls?) That a girl can
> be impregnated at eleven or twelve? By any old creep who rapes her?
> These are not mere "health care" matters. They are biological matters
> that structure our political concerns.
This reasoning to me is the danger of naturalizing the distinction between men and women. Do you really believe the only reason why a woman might want to have a baby is a "biological clock"? After years of indoctrination, mass media images, social pressure from friends and family, role models, religious doctrine, the only possible, plausible reason why a woman wants a baby is . . . biological. As usual, the biological here is just a way of erasing the importance of the social and how our identities and desires are shaped via social relations.