Ode to Onzichtbare moeder | Invisible mother: taboo as a pregnancy corset

This text was translated using AI and may contain errors. If you have suggestions or comments, please contact us at info.ode@amsterdammuseum.nl.

In our intervention, we use role-play to pay tribute to two fictional invisible mothers from different time periods, one from 1890 and the other from 2025. The inspiration for this was the pregnancy corset from around 1900 on display at the exhibition (fig. 1). With this intervention, we highlight the dilemmas faced by the two women and invite dialogue and reflection. How can we, as a society, contribute positively to women's right to bodily autonomy?

Intervention:

In the role play, two fictional women, Inaya and Keetje, meet on a bench in front of the abortion clinic at Sarphatistraat 620 (fig. 2). They strike up an intimate conversation. Inaya, the woman from 2025, has just visited the clinic because she wants to terminate her pregnancy and is waiting for her partner. Keetje, the woman from 1890, is waiting for her husband, who is at the barracks. The woman from 1890 wants to take off her corset – “I don't want this anymore” – and proudly show her pregnant belly. Inaya wants to be able to talk about her decision to have an abortion and remove the taboo surrounding it: “A child changes everything. You have to be ready for that.” Inaya and Keetje both want to be heard and have control over their own bodies.
 

Both women are effectively invisible mothers, and the restriction and constriction of the pregnancy corset in the nineteenth century can be seen as a metaphor for the suffocating taboo that still surrounds abortion today. With our intervention, we want to honor a pregnant body with retroactive effect and decriminalize abortion.

Explanation:

What do a nineteenth-century maternity corset and an abortion clinic have in common? In principle, they are opposites. One implies a desired pregnancy, the other an unwanted one. You would expect the maternity corset to take on a completely different meaning in the context of an abortion clinic. Nothing could be further from the truth.
 

We are aware that presenting a maternity corset in a controversial place such as an abortion clinic is a bold intervention. Our goal is to gently make the invisible visible. We are engaging in a dialogue on two levels. Firstly, we connect women's emancipation in 1890 with women's emancipation in 2025, and secondly, there is a dialogue between two mothers from the aforementioned periods.

At the end of the 19th century, the corset was a standard part of a woman's wardrobe, which also had to be worn during pregnancy. Wearing a corset allowed women to remain in the public domain for longer, as pregnancy was considered private. Once a pregnancy was revealed, a woman lost her agency and was only spoken to in the context of the child, particularly about the impact of her actions on the child. The tight corset could have serious consequences for the health of both mother and child; inverted nipples and uterine prolapse were common dangers. The only advantage from the woman's point of view was that the corset could 'grow' somewhat with the belly.

Women with unwanted pregnancies are still criticised, mainly by the Christian anti-abortion lobby. The Civitas Christiana Foundation is responsible for the Stirezo Pro Life campaign, which fights for unborn children. They consider abortion to be murder. The 'pro-lifers' who stand guard at abortion clinics believe they are saving pregnant women and unborn children by convincing them not to have an abortion. Even during our intervention, a pro-life activist approached us. Partly because of this stigmatization and intimidating activism, women are unable or afraid to talk openly about it and remain invisible.

Interestingly, the location of the abortion clinic, Sarphatistraat 620, used to be a male stronghold. The building was constructed in 1810 on Napoleon's orders, but was never used by the French because their rule had already ended by the time it was completed in 1813. It was then used as the Oranje-Nassau barracks by the Dutch army until 1987. The current abortion clinic has been located here since February 2018.

It is hard to imagine a greater contrast than a macho barracks versus an abortion clinic where women are cared for. This is an example of one of the contradictions that emerged in our intervention. In addition, desired and unwanted pregnancy, literal and figurative invisibility, and women's emancipation versus conservatism add layers and depth to this intervention. Finally, the intervention contains a moral-ethical contradiction. The difference in function of the building—barracks and abortion clinic—emphasizes the ambivalent attitude of the West toward the termination of life. In the case of war, this is completely “accepted” by military action, but in the case of abortion, the termination of life is considered unethical by many.