Parthenogenesis (“Virgin Birth”): 
A Woman’s Futile Attempt at 
Achieving Recognition
Irina Rabinovich
Holon Institute of Technology, English Department, 52 Golumb Street, Holon 5810201, Israel
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4801-7365
irener@hit.ac.il
This article demonstrates how a contemporary British writer, Clare Chambers, 
in her novel Small Pleasures (2020), applies fourth-wave feminist notions when 
describing historical events from 1955–1956, namely an actual attempt to prove 
parthenogenesis (“virgin birth”) by scientific methods. Such an analysis reflects 
important social and cultural changes that have taken place in the last six 
decades regarding women’s reproductive rights and autonomy, body image, and 
lesbianism. The paper shows that in contrast to the conservative and repressive 
postwar British society that viewed lesbianism and the idea of conception through 
parthenogenesis as a deviation from accepted norms, contemporary representations 
of the latter issues have undergone tremendous change. The paper also shows how 
Chambers insinuates a much more recent outlook on parthenogenesis often held 
by members of the lesbian community, particularly its members who belong to the 
separatist wing. This view includes both utopian and dystopian ideas. Finally, the 
role of sensational and tabloid journalism in influencing public opinion and, 
consequently, in shaping social and cultural constructs is described.
Keywords: English literature / Chambers, Clare / gender studies / parthenogenesis / 
lesbianism / conservatism / sensational journalism
177
Primerjalna književnost (Ljubljana) 46.2 (2023)
Introduction
Clare Chambers’s novel Small Pleasures (2020), among other important 
themes, rekindles an incident of an alleged parthenogenesis1 (“virgin-
birth”) that astounded the British public, overwhelmed the Britain’s 
religious institutions, and led to heated debates within the U.K. and 
1 Parthenogenesis is the development of an unfertilized egg into a new individual. 
Coined by Carl Theodor Ernst von Siebold (b. 1804–d. 1885) in 1871, the literal 
meaning of parthenogenesis is “virgin reproduction”—reproduction in the absence of 
males (Schwander 1). 
PKn, letnik 46, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2023
178
world’s medical communities. An article published in 1955 in the 
British The Sunday Pictorial  claimed that in 1946, a British woman, 
Mrs. Emmimarie Jones, a virgin at the time of conception, while bed-
ridden with rheumatism in a German hospital, gave birth to a daugh-
ter, Monica. Between November 1955 and June 1956, Mrs. Jones and 
her daughter willingly yielded to a set of medical experiments, set up 
by a team of researchers at Guy’s and Queen Charlotte’s Hospital, 
London. The results of the tests were quite controversial, hence leading 
to animated worldwide public and medical disputes.  
The goal of this paper is to show the way in which a current fictional 
depiction of historical events occurring in 1955–1956 is influenced 
by fourth-wave feminism and by lesbian dystopian literature.2 Such a 
literary interpretation mirrors important social and cultural shifts that 
have occurred in the last sixty years. The paper demonstrates that as 
opposed to the British post-war conservative and dismal society’s judg-
ment of and bias toward parthenogenesis and lesbian relationships, 
seen as deviations from accepted norms, the contemporary depiction 
of latter themes has undergone a tremendous change. In particular, 
the paper explains how this contemporary novel suggests a much more 
recent and complex outlook on parthenogenesis, one that is often 
adopted by the members of the lesbian community, especially by its 
members belonging to the separatist wing. For instance, while in the 
nineteen-fifties, Emmimarie Jones’s motives for undergoing tedious 
medical trials aimed at proving “virgin-birth” were obscured by the 
press and medical institutions, Chambers’s protagonist, Gretchen, a 
product of a contemporary writer, uses science as a means of proving 
her sexual prowess, hence attempting, though not quite successfully, to 
gain acceptance by her lesbian lover.
The novel portrays characters that generally profess self-efface-
ment, self-denial and often resort to unjustifiably sacrificing behav-
iors. Quite paradoxically, though physically and emotionally fragile, 
the only protagonist who manages to make decisions and try to prove 
her case is Gretchen, the social “Other.” Although quite fruitlessly, 
Gretchen attempts to achieve personal and sexual freedom, much 
before feminism has liberated British women from subordination to 
patriarchal and conservative viewpoints. The paper attests the central-
ity of the bleak, prohibitive, postwar British setting and atmosphere in 
2 As far as I know, Small Pleasures, although probably inspired by dystopian novels 
such as Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s Herland (1915) or Joan Lyn Slonczewski’s science 
fiction novel A Door into Ocean (1986), as some others that portray single-gender 
worlds, it is quite a unique oeuvre, as this book is based on an actual occurrence. 
Irina Rabinovich:     Parthenogenesis (“Virgin Birth”)
179
depicting contemporaneous female characters who struggle to achieve 
social acceptance, professional recognition and personal well-being. 
Finally, as Mrs. Jones’s actual story was expansively and internation-
ally covered in the press, and its fictional rendering centers around 
the role of journalists who target the main protagonist, accompany 
her while performing medical check-ups, and then report extensively 
the results of the latter, the paper also demonstrates how publications 
concerning medial trials, mainly published in tabloid journals, in gen-
eral, and related to parthenogenesis, in particular, have influenced the 
public discourse.
Sensational headlines that covered the front pages of tabloid jour-
nals, quoting reports published in scientific journals, fueled numerous 
public discussions about the pros and cons of the scientific or ethical 
matters reported. Chambers uses a ripped-from-the-headlines genre, a 
genre often used (mainly in movies and TV series) to address medical-
ethical dilemmas concerning body autonomy, reproduction, eugenics, 
and in-vitro fertilization. Such a genre, besides presenting sensational 
dramas and personal tragedies, ponders on important societal issues, 
such as homosexuality, domestic violence, etc. The book received many 
enthusiastic reviews, as mainstream feminist critics praised Chambers 
for penetrating “the secret hopes and passionate inner lives of ordi-
nary working people” (Johnson 44), and for ably depicting women 
who manage to do their best in most chaotic realities (MacMahon 1). 
Nevertheless, no critical response has been heard from the separatist 
current within feminist circles, probably since the novel depicts not just 
a failed attempt at parthenogenesis, but also a dissatisfactory lesbian 
love affair.
Parthenogenesis in medical and popular journals
On November 6, 1955, Audrey Whiting, a reporter with the British 
The Sunday Pictorial published on the newspaper’s front page a story 
entitled “Virgin Births—Doctors Now Say—It Doesn’t Always Need 
a Man to Make a Baby” (See Figure 1). In the middle of the article 
a bold caption stated “Find the Case,” thereby dramatically inviting 
potential candidates to visit Dr. Helen Spurway’s lab at Guy’s and 
Queen Charlotte’s Hospital, London, and perform medical tests that 
affirm cases of parthenogenesis in human females. The article creat-
ed an immediate stir and the paper’s circulation first doubled, then 
tripled, reaching eventually a record number of six million issues, as 
PKn, letnik 46, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2023
180
the updates about Emmimarie Jones’s tests kept flowing.3 The story 
captured not just the attention of the British press. On November 
28, 1955, the American Time published a report entitled “Medicine: 
Parthenogenesis?” in which it quoted an article from a scientific jour-
nal, The Lancet, claiming that there “is no reason for dismissing the idea 
[of parthenogenesis] entirely,” while the Melbourne-based Argus wrote 
that “it’s the story the whole world is talking about.”
Figure 1. The story that shocked Britain: Monica Jones had been conceived without a 
man. Sunday Pictorial, June 24, 1956.
The Sunday Pictorial’s article followed a 1955 lecture given by the geneti-
cist Dr. Helen Spurway of University College London, in which she de-
scribed how the female of a species of guppy fish, while being kept apart 
from the male, can autonomously give birth to female offspring. Dr. 
Spurway also observed a laboratory creation of healthy rabbits (mammals) 
procreated without male parents. This occurrence of artificial partheno-
genesis “led Dr. Spurway to call for a re-examination of the assumption 
3 Interestingly, while The Sunday Pictorial as other “Family Newspapers” usually pro-
moted quite conservative approach to sexuality, characterized by disapproval of “immoral-
ity” such as divorce, homosexuality, and prostitution, there often existed an “eternal ambi-
guity” (Bingham 116), fearing to lose subscribers and advertisers if they became too bold 
in handling sexual matters, the former published in 1949 a pioneering national sex survey, 
the first of its kind in Great Britain, and a series of articles on homosexuality.
Irina Rabinovich:     Parthenogenesis (“Virgin Birth”)
181
that spontaneous parthenogenesis—aka, a virgin birth—was impossible 
in humans” (Chambers, “Virgin Birth?”). At the end of her lecture Dr. 
Spurway invited women who considered themselves to be virgin mothers 
to daughters, with a striking resemblance to the mother, and who could 
corroborate their claims that no male was involved in the latter’s concep-
tion, to undergo scientific examinations. Nineteen women showed up, 
but all, except one, Emmimarie Jones, were distrusted and hence rejected. 
The motives behind Jones’s readiness to undergo the complicated tests 
remain unknown (See Figure 2). Audrey Whiting, The Sunday Pictorial’s 
journalist, who befriended Emmimarie and accompanied her during 
all medical procedures, wrote that in 1948, two years after her daugh-
ter’s birth, Emmimarie married a Welsh soldier stationed in Germany 
and moved with him to Hereford, England. It might be speculated that 
Emmimarie wanted to prove the truthfulness of her claim (of being a 
“virgin mother”) to her husband and family, though Emmimarie has 
never confirmed it. Curiously, Emmimarie and her daughter disappeared 
shortly after the tests were performed.4
Figure 2. Emmimarie Jones and daughter Monica in 1956. Image: Mirrorpix/
Charman/Sunday Mirror.
The prestigious medical journal, The Lancet, published four articles 
(dated 30 June 1956, 7 July 1956, 21 July 1956, and 28 July 1956) de-
scribing the tests’ procedures and listing medical experts’ deliberations 
regarding parthenogenesis. The preliminary test results demonstrated 
4 In an interview on BBC Radio 4’s program, Woman’s Hour, in 2001, Whiting, 
who had become quite an intimate friend of Emmimarie, admitted that surprisingly 
“she [Emmimarie] disappeared from the face of the Earth” (Whiting).
PKn, letnik 46, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2023
182
that Emmimarie and Monica were indeed an identical match when 
it came to blood, saliva, and sense of taste, with findings believed to 
be consistent with a “virgin birth.” Nevertheless, for the final test, the 
team grafted some of Monica’s skin onto Emmimarie, and vice versa, 
believing that much like skin grafts successfully accomplished between 
identical twins, their immune systems would result in the grafts being 
accepted. Monica’s skin fell from Emmimarie’s graft after four weeks, 
while Monica’s graft lasted six weeks, throwing doubt onto the claims 
of parthenogenesis.
While Dr. J. W. Nicholas in The Lancet’s 7 July 1956 issue claimed 
that “Dr. Balfour-Lynn [one of the researchers involved in Emmimarie 
Jones’ trials] is, of course, trying to do something long recognized as 
impossible—namely, to prove paternity by blood-grouping and allied 
tests” (47), Dr. Balfour-Lynn explained in the journal’s 30 July 1956 
issue that though “rigorous proof is impossible […] it remains that all 
the evidence obtained from serological and special tests is consistent 
with what would be expected in a case of parthenogenesis. Thus, this 
mother’s claim must not only be considered seriously, but it must also 
be admitted that we have been unable to disprove it” (1072).
Small Pleasures follows quite closely the factual events pertaining to the 
actual parthenogenesis’ story, though the names of the protagonists and 
some biographical details have been slightly altered. In a letter addressed 
to the editor of a local newspaper, the North Kent Echo, Gretchen 
Tilbury refers to the newspaper’s article “Man No Longer Needed for 
Reproduction” and asks to participate in a medical trial, as she has “always 
believed my [her] own daughter (now ten) to have been born without 
the involvement of any man” (Chambers, Small 4). While the newspa-
per’s male reporters mock Gretchen’s appeal, Jean Swinney, the newspa-
per’s only female journalist, a “features editor, columnist, dogsbody” (4), 
whose main task is publishing recipes or lifestyle and household com-
mentaries, volunteers to research Gretchen’s story. Jean, a spinster aged 
thirty-nine, is a warm hearted and high-spirited woman, who managed 
to be promoted to a post of a life-style columnist, after toiling for many 
years in the newspaper’s printing press room. During World War II, Jane 
served as a driver in the medical corps, and upon release from the service, 
as many women in her position, hoped to get married and lead a typical 
suburban life. According to Caitriona Beaumont, such aspirations should 
not surprise us as “in contrast to the dynamic possibilities of women’s 
new role in postwar society, the prevailing view of women at this time, 
as illustrated in popular women’s magazines, was that the vast majority 
aspired only to marriage and motherhood” (Beaumont 148). 
Irina Rabinovich:     Parthenogenesis (“Virgin Birth”)
183
According to Stephanie Spencer, “in postwar Britain the Family 
(with a capital F) became the symbol of national character/identity, and 
it was to women as ‘housewives and mothers’ that the job fell to cre-
ate and maintain the symbolic traditional family unit” (Spencer 338). 
Jane, however, failed in building a “traditional family unit.” Her lover 
turned out to be a married man and a liar, who upon finding out that 
she was pregnant, cut off their relationships. In postwar Britain, the sole 
possibility for unmarried pregnant women, like Jane, who had to make 
a living and to provide for her widowed mother, was to have an abor-
tion, which in her case was performed by an unprofessional practitioner, 
hence leaving Jane with scant chances of conceiving in the future.
For Jane, Gretchen’s story becomes much more than ordinary 
reportage; “for reasons that were not just to do with journalistic hunger 
for a good story, she wanted it to be true” (Chambers, Small 19). For 
her, it is not just an intriguing mystery, but a quest to find the truth. By 
delving into Gretchen’s aching soul and secluded existence, Jane aspires 
to break away from her own reclusive way of life. Moreover, she senses 
instinctively that disclosing the motives behind Gretchen’s yearning to 
corroborate the alleged story of her alleged “virgin birth” will shed light 
on the latter’s forlorn and secretive life which somehow epitomizes 
Jane’s own confined existence. Jane first establishes close and genu-
ine bonds, based on mutual sympathy and trust, with Gretchen, and 
then with Gretchen’s husband and daughter, for whom Jane becomes 
a model figure and a kind of a godmother or, at times, even a mother’s 
substitute. For Jane, Margaret turns into a surrogate daughter, and her 
increasing attachment to the girl somehow narrows the gap of her own 
childlessness. She even publishes a short piece in her newspaper, enti-
tled “the Unofficial Aunt” in which she praises the advantageous rela-
tionship between a young protégée and “the maiden aunt” in whom 
the former “acquires a wise counselor and confident, unburdened by 
parental expectations,” while “the childless woman enjoys the fleeting 
taste of the parenthood and acquires a greater understanding of the 
younger generation” (143).
It should be noted, however, that Jane’s attempt to deal with “seri-
ous” journalistic matters is quite ironic. Firstly, her newspaper, the North 
Kent Echo, like its factual counterpart, The Sunday Pictorial, is a tabloid 
that promotes scandals and sensational fiction and journalism. Second, 
The Sunday Pictorial was notorious for publishing articles opposing any 
future legislation that could one day decriminalize homosexuality.
In 1952, Douglas Warth published in The Sunday Pictorial several 
articles concerning homosexuality, stating that “the chief danger of the 
PKn, letnik 46, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2023
184
perverts is the corrupting influence they have on youth. Most people 
know there are such things—‘pansies’—mincing, effeminate young 
men who call themselves queers. But simple decent folk regard them 
as freaks and rarities. […] If homosexuality were tolerated here, Britain 
would rapidly become decadent” (Warth 6). Hence, not just the public 
was prejudiced by the negative tone of the newspapers, homosexuality 
began to be defined and understood in negative terms by everyone, 
including homosexuals themselves (Buckle 47). The discourse concern-
ing homosexuality had complex rapports with mainstream media, since 
the British media’s treatment of this “social problem” was kept almost 
undercover. Just in late 1950s some newspapers chose to end “their 
self-censored relationship with homosexuality” (46); but the report-
age remained often contradictory and confused. “Newspapers that pre-
sented a negative image of homosexuality on one issue at one particular 
time,” says Buckle, “could then promote a much more liberal image on 
another issue—and vice versa.” (47) 
The lack of legal measures against female homosexuality and the 
effect of social prohibitions meant that depictions of lesbianism in 
literature, movies and the media were particularly limited in postwar 
Britain. Rebecca Jennings maintains that “the press depicted lesbians 
only infrequently, and then within the scandalous contexts of divorce” 
or “in the context of failed relationships and social isolation” (Jennings 
886). Therefore, on the one hand, Gretchen’s story falls into the cat-
egory of “scandalous contexts,” as she leaves her husband and daughter 
and moves to her lesbian lover’s apartment; on the other hand, such a 
story takes place outside mainstream journalism, which precludes Jane 
from becoming a “serious” journalist.
Gretchen’s futile attempt at proving parthenogenesis
Gretchen is a young and pretty woman in her early thirties who grew 
up in England since she was nine. Born to strict Catholic parents, 
who immigrated to England from the German part of Switzerland, 
Gretchen has always felt as an outsider. In 1946, the seventeen-year-
old Gretchen, while being hospitalized due to arthritis, and almost to-
tally confined to her bed for four months in St. Cecilia Nursing and 
Convalescent Home, rigorously supervised by nuns, much to her sur-
prise became pregnant, and seven months after her release from the 
hospital, gave birth to a daughter, Margaret. Her quiet, suburban life in 
a neatly kept house and well-tended garden seems almost perfect. Her 
Irina Rabinovich:     Parthenogenesis (“Virgin Birth”)
185
husband, Howard, a kind and respectful, middle-aged jeweler, claims 
that he has always believed Gretchen’s story about Margaret’s birth. 
He married Gretchen when Margaret was a baby and has raised the 
girl as his own daughter. Gretchen is seemingly a perfect homemaker, a 
skilled cook and a talented dressmaker who creates her daughter’s and 
her own beautifully designed clothes. Yet, throughout this almost idyl-
lic setting, Chambers manages to disseminate some seeds of doubt, es-
pecially when Jane finds out that only herself visits the house, or when 
Jane notices that Gretchen and Howard do not share a bed, or when 
Margaret, a lively and intelligent girl, implies that Gretchen is not keen 
on participating in fun weekend activities such as picnics or any other 
familial outings or visits. 
Meanwhile, while Jane is busy first locating and then interview-
ing Gretchen’s former female friends at St. Cecilia Nursing and 
Convalescent Home and the Home’s supervisor, reading the Home’s 
matron’s diaries, written during Gretchen’s confinement, and escorting 
Gretchen and Margaret to their medical check-ups at the hospital, her 
relationships with Howard grow closer. She also realizes that on several 
occasions, for unexplained reasons, Gretchen pushes her husband into 
Jane’s arms, which eventually, after Gretchen’s marriage unexpectedly 
breaks down, leads to Jane’s and Howard’s love affair.
One of the most interesting and disturbing encounters Jane’s 
thorough investigation into Gretchen’s past brings about is that with 
Martha Campkin, Gretchen’s closest friend while in St. Cecilia. The 
hospital’s former matron describes Martha, a vicar’s daughter as a rebel, 
as “spiky […] and very brave,” and not “as compliant as Gretchen” 
(Chambers, Small 56) who is described as “innocent as a lamb” who 
“wouldn’t have known one end of from another” (52). Kitty, another 
patient at St. Cecilia, depicts Martha as “scornful of religion” (286), 
while Brenda, the fourth patient in Gretchen’s and Martha’s ward, 
characterizes Martha as “a bully and very possessive” (208), especially 
toward Gretchen when the latter tried to make friends with other girls. 
Jane’s meeting with Martha invites a crucial moment in the novel’s 
plot. Martha is a “tall, striking woman with scarlet lipstick” (Chambers, 
Small 99), dressed in strange bohemian clothes. She confesses of break-
ing all ties with her sickly and elderly parents since she “got tired of their 
disapproval,” and with whom she “disagree[s] about everything,” as 
“they’re Edwardians essentially, absolutely at sea in the modern world” 
(99–100). She is an invalid, walking with a stick and wearing “curi-
ous leather splints” (99) that are bound around her hands and wrists, 
probably due to arthritis. Martha is a painter and an art teacher who 
PKn, letnik 46, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2023
186
barely makes ends meet. Though she lives in a filthy and freezing loft, 
mainly crawling with easels and paints, Martha is a proud person who 
does not complain about her lot. Upon hearing from Jean the story of 
Gretchen’s alleged parthenogenesis, and mainly the doctors’ convic-
tion regarding the latter’s probable feasibility, Martha sends Gretchen 
a gift, signaling that after more than ten years of separation, Gretchen 
is welcome to renew their former relations.
Gretchen, an ultimate “Other,” an outsider, raised by overtly strict 
and inhibitive parents, believes, while at St. Cecilia, that Martha is the 
only person who really cares about her and treats her as an equal. Kitty’s 
description of Martha’s and Gretchen’s relationships corroborates their 
attachment, leaving Jean perplexed regarding “this unexpected picture 
of Martha’s vulnerability” (Chambers, Small 283). “Martha was her 
[Gretchen’s] special friend,” Kitty remarks, “the beds were too wide 
apart for them to hold hands, so they used to hold the ends of a rolled-
up towel between them. Isn’t that sweet?” (283) Gretchen did not 
realize that Martha’s special attention and seeming care conceal strong 
possessive and jealous behaviors and a lesbian attachment. Martha 
does not allow Gretchen to socialize with other girls. Moreover, she 
convinces Gretchen to hoard painkillers and sleeping pills and then 
take overdoses of these substances, apparently “to guarantee a deep and 
painless sleep” (121), but essentially aiming at achieving full control of 
Gretchen’s mind and body. The Matron, in her diary, comments that 
Martha “is a devil to take a risk like this,” adding that “Gretchen is filly 
led along by Martha” (121), even if such practices may cause to fatal 
consequences. Eventually, as the novel proceeds, the narrator reveals 
the tragic consequences of pills’ hoarding. After taking an overdose 
of sleeping pills, Gretchen was surreptitiously raped by the Matron’s 
deranged nephew, which, in turn, brought about her pregnancy and 
alleged “virgin birth.”
It seems that Gretchen’s worship of Martha is mostly based on an 
imagined spiritual attachment and on admiration of Martha’s boldness 
and determination and less on physical attraction. She is totally blind to 
Martha’s narcissism, selfishness, and despotism. Gretchen’s uncondi-
tional love makes her totally oblivious to Martha’s agonizing rejection. 
When the shocked Gretchen finds out that she is pregnant, and comes 
to Martha’s house believing that the latter “was the one person who 
would understand,” (Chambers, Small 225) as Gretchen innocently 
conjectured that the baby who “had come to me [Gretchen] while 
we were is St. Cecilia’s together” (225) belongs to both, the enraged 
Martha accuses Gretchen of betrayal and shuts the door on her. Since 
Irina Rabinovich:     Parthenogenesis (“Virgin Birth”)
187
then, Gretchen’s sole aim in life is to prove her innocence and bring 
Martha back to her life. Even the baby girl’s name, Margaret, is a com-
bination of Martha’s and Gretchen’s names, as Gretchen believes she is 
product of their unison.
When Jean confronts Martha regarding the sacrifices Gretchen has 
made after the latter leaves Howard and her home and moves with 
Martha, Martha aggressively reacts saying “she [Gretchen] was mine 
before she was his” (Chambers, Small 222). Martha’s seeming acknowl-
edgement and acceptance of Gretchen’s story of “virgin birth” brings 
about Gretchen’s imagined catharsis. Freud and Breuer defined cathar-
sis as “the process of reducing or eliminating a complex by recalling it 
to conscious awareness and allowing it to be expressed” (Breuer and 
Freud 8).5 The American Psychological Association defines it as “the 
discharge of affects connected to traumatic events that had previously 
been repressed by bringing these events back into consciousness and 
re-experiencing them” (VandenBos). Although in some cases, accord-
ing to Freud and Breuer, catharsis or emotional release may become an 
important therapeutic tool for coping with fear, depression, and anxi-
ety, in this case Gretchen’s ostensible abreaction is temporary, since 
Martha’s domineering nature cannot bear any traces of free will or 
independence that Gretchen shyly attempts to exercise, such as accom-
modating Margaret in their loft, allowing Gretchen to invite visitors, 
or contributing to the household’s meager budget by taking sewing 
orders. Gretchen is literally confined to the freezing loft, suffering from 
cold, arthritis and neglect. “Her once lustrous hair was greasy and there 
were dark semicircles under her eyes.” (Chambers, Small 293)
Pseudo-homosexual discourse
Interestingly, and most likely subversively, Chambers here adopts a 
pseudo-homosexual discourse, quite popular in the fifties, regarding 
power-relations within lesbian couples. The discourse was first intro-
duced in 1929 by the well-known German sexologist, Iwan Bloch, and 
later popularized by other sexologists and psychologists. Bloch and his 
fellow researcher, Magnus Hirschfeld, asserted that genuine homosexu-
als were biologically disposed to members of the same sex, while pseu-
do-homosexuals—mainly women—were the formation of external 
5 It should be noted in this context that numerous historians hold Freud respon-
sible for pathologizing homosexuality, as, paradoxically, Freud socially constructs the 
very diagnosis that he seeks to treat via the practice of catharsis. 
PKn, letnik 46, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2023
188
circumstances, such as the lack of male sexual partners in prisons, hos-
pitals, or schools (Bloch 281). According to Bloch, since many hetero-
sexual women are naturally predisposed towards “tenderness and ca-
resses,” it is easier for them to adopt “pseudo-homosexual tendencies” 
(72). Jennings explains that “Freudian accounts of sexuality,” popular 
in Britain in the fifties and sixties, refers to lesbianism as to an “‘ar-
rested development’: a girl becoming fixed at an earlier stage of sexual 
development and failing to reach adult heterosexuality” (886). Some 
other psychiatrists believed that lesbianism may be “cured” by “extreme 
forms of behavioral therapy or surgical intervention” or some less in-
vasive “form of psychoanalysis or psychotherapy” (895). Gretchen is 
depicted as an asexual woman, or a woman that suffers from “arrested 
development.” Lacking tenderness and maternal love, and defying het-
erosexual relations with her husband, she resorts to pseudo-homosexual 
relations with Martha, hoping to attain warmth and attention. Martha 
resorts to all sorts of violence: verbal emotional and financial, which 
is perfectly in line with several recent studies that examined violence 
among lesbians.6 Furthermore, if for Gretchen, Margaret is the token 
of Martha’s and Gretchen’s love, for Martha, Margaret is a nuisance 
that disturbs full domination of her lover.
Gender-specific identities
In their discussion of homosexual family, Frost and Eliason refer to “fu-
sion,” a concept which is extensively referred to in psychotherapeutic 
and lesbian popular culture literatures. “Fusion” delineates the overly 
close bonds between lovers, often lacking boundaries in female same-
sex couples (Frost and Eliason 65). Sometimes, such merging may 
be beneficial, as it protects the lesbian couple from the criticism and 
threats of the outside world, but often, like in Martha’s and Gretchen’s 
case, Martha’s treatment of Gretchen becomes obsessive and “the in-
tense anxiety over any desire for separateness or autonomy within the 
6 According to a 1997 study by Lisa K. Waldner-Haugrud et al., “lesbians were 
more likely to be classified as victims and perpetrators of violence than gay men […] 
lesbians reported experiencing a greater number of different victimization and per-
petration tactics than gay men” (173). Studies by Robert J. Milletich et al., Lewis et 
al., and Walters et al. have shown that partner violence perpetration among same-sex 
couples occurs at rates that are equal to or higher than perpetration among opposite-
sex couples. West found that approximately 30–40% of lesbian women have been 
involved in at least one, if not more, physically abusive relationships.
Irina Rabinovich:     Parthenogenesis (“Virgin Birth”)
189
relationship” (Krestan and Bepko 277) causes Gretchen to lose her 
sense of individuality. If at the beginning of the relationship, Gretchen 
feels that her ten-year struggle to regain Martha’s love and approval 
bring about a sense of euphoria and victory, Martha’s hostility toward 
Margaret and her restrictive and domineering behavior cause Gretchen 
to experience a loss of her former sense of self. Moreover, given the 
controversy surrounding the legitimacy of lesbianism in the fifties,7 and 
the fear of losing custody of her child, Gretchen naively believes that 
she can go back to her life with Howard. Howard continues to support 
Gretchen financially and takes care of Margaret but is unready to take 
the former back.
Gretchen’s anxiety shows how gender-specific identities are still 
relevant in society and how the latter oppresses those who try to go 
against social norms. Gretchen is striving for autonomous self-defini-
tion beyond her domestic duties. In this way she demonstrates a lasting 
persistence of reductionist patriarchal view of women’s roles and shows 
how deeply women have internalized them. She tries to have power 
over her own wishes while not letting herself be limited by patriarchal 
impositions. In this way, she challenges the self-sacrificial belief that 
women should put the needs of others over their own and focus on 
caring and supporting roles, not only in relation to their partners and 
children. Unlike Jean, whose whole life revolves around caring for her 
mother, Gretchen challenges the accepted social roles by refusing to 
sacrifice her own dreams. Ironically, resisting patriarchy does not bring 
about freedom. Quite contrary, Gretchen autonomy is jeopardized not 
by a male partner, but by her female lover. 
Unexpectedly, Martha who professes seemingly advanced ideas regard-
ing female advancement and independence, in practice acts according 
to notions often associated with patriarchal culture and “male” values, 
such as violence, aggression, and repression. Her treatment of Margaret 
7 Male homosexuality was classified by APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of 
Mental Disorders as a mental illness until 1973 when it was replaced with the diagnosis 
of “sexual orientation disturbance.” Although female homosexuality was not criminal-
ized in England, it was still, like male homosexuality, officially regarded as a mental 
disorder or a “sexual deviation.” Many lesbian women were subjected to conversion 
treatments. According to Carr and Spandler, “various mental health-related disciplines 
in England were involved in the treatment of same-sex attracted women, whether to 
change, or accept and adjust to, their sexual orientation” (289). Moreover, several 
novels depicting sexual relations between lesbians were banned; for example, when 
Marguerite Antonia Radclyffe Hall’s novel Well of Loneliness (1928) was republished 
in 1949, it was prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act for lesbian content.
PKn, letnik 46, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2023
190
also goes against the utopian vision8 of many lesbians, especially those 
belonging to the separatist current. According to Greta Rensenbrink, 
“the promise of parthenogenesis that it could affirm and make possible 
women’s culture and women’s community was in some sense fulfilled” 
(Rensenbrink 316). Lesbian feminists, cultural feminists, and lesbian 
separatists were highly excited about the possibility of parthenogenesis 
which could allow woman-only conception, hence leading to establish-
ing separatist women’s communities. Sue Rosser asserts that “lesbian 
separatism, often seen as an offshoot of radical feminism, would suggest 
that separation from men is necessary in a patriarchal society for females 
to understand their experiences and explore the potentials of science and 
the impacts of reproductive technologies” (Rosser 10). Interestingly, 
Martha neither sees Margaret as a token of her and Gretchen’s love-
affair, nor she envisions a happy feminist household, where two lesbian 
lovers raise a child. Chambers, building on a factual story of a woman’s 
attempt to validate parthenogenesis in the nineteen-fifties, constructs her 
protagonist, Gretchen, through a modern outlook, that of a third or 
fourth-wave feminist. Gretchen does not hesitate to use, or one might 
say exploit, science (parthenogenesis) to prove her case.
Moreover, Gretchen’s attempt at creating a promising relationship, 
based on trustworthiness, dependability and faith within a lesbian con-
text is a postmodernist notion which is strange to the governing social 
mood in the fifties. Unfortunately, Gretchen’s struggle to attain hap-
piness and appreciation is doomed to fail since the roots of Gretchen’s 
and Martha’s relationships are still deeply grounded in patriarchal sys-
tem both are products of. Gretchen is unready to lead a self-sufficient 
and independent life and needs either Howard or Martha to support 
her both emotionally and financially. Tragically, Martha’s resistance 
of patriarchy and authoritarian parental attitudes leads her to embrace 
the same stance that she rebels against—power, verbal and economic 
oppression and alienation of Gretchen from her daughter and friends. 
C. Maria in her essay “Separatism is Not a Luxury” claims that:
8 In many fertility utopias like Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s Herland (1915) or Mary 
E. Bradley Lane’s Mizora (1890), parthenogenesis is used as a means of exploring the 
politics of body autonomy. For Gilman, parthenogenesis allows women to exercise 
their independence and capabilities as women, and serves as a metaphor for birth 
control that permits the author to advocate a woman’s right to family limitation. For 
Bradley Lane, parthenogenesis serves as a method of in-vitro fertilization that allows 
the author to explore the exciting potential of reproducing without a man. Neither 
author takes parthenogenesis at face value or as a scientific reality; rather, they employ 
it as a plot device to make their arguments for body autonomy and eugenics.
Irina Rabinovich:     Parthenogenesis (“Virgin Birth”)
191
The Lesbian Separatist has chosen to defy men, to hate men, in order to be for 
women and for our freedom to be our Selves. The price to maintain our integ-
rity is often poverty, violence, degradation, and the denial of basic necessities. 
Despite the poverty suffered and the obstacles placed in front of us, we know 
we are right. And because of the joy and freedom we radiate, our enemies 
know we are right. (Maria, 16–17)
Such an approach may permit female patriarchy against other women. 
Martha’s hostility toward men and her defiance of society results in 
poverty, violence, and victimization of her lover. The gloomy and re-
pressive nineteen-fifty setting plays an important role in the novel. 
London is described as being often noisy, grim, and filthy with its 
“shuddering bulk of buses and taxis panting out clouds of diesel” 
(Chambers, Small 338–339). The shabby Luna Street in Chelsea, 
where Martha and Gretchen live, is plagued by rats, and filled with 
garbage. The description of Martha’s violent neighbor who terrorizes 
his wife and threatens the whole neighborhood adds to the dismal de-
piction of her filthy apartment and her own aggressive behavior. The 
oppressive environment serves as a reflective image of the restrictive 
social climate that is unable to accept nonstandard behaviors, such 
as having children outside of wedlock (in Jane’s case) or lesbianism 
(in Martha’s and Gretchen’s) case. Society’s and media’s interest in 
Gretchen’s alleged parthenogenesis is not driven by empathy; it is the 
sensation or “deviation” from the norm that entices curiosity. Such a 
disconcerting setting cannot allow the fulfillment of one’s dreams or 
the flourishing of loving rapports.
WORKS CITED
VandenBos, Gary R., and American Psychological Association.  APA Dictionary of 
Psychology. 1st ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2007.
Balfour-Lynn, Stanley. “Parthenogenesis in Human Beings.” The Lancet 270.6931 
(1956): 1071–1072.
Blair, J.C. “Parthenogenesis.” The Lancet 268.6935 (1956): 203–203.
Beaumont, Caitriona. “What Do Women Want? Housewives’ Associations, Activism 
and Changing Representations of Women in the 1950s.” Women’s History Review 
26.1 (2017): 147–162. 
Bingham, Adrian. Family Newspapers: Sex, Private Life, and the British Popular Press 
1918–78. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Buckle, Sebastian. The Way Out: A History of Homosexuality in Modern Britain. London: 
Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015. 
Bloch, Iwan. Sexual Life in Our Time. London: Rebman, 1909.
PKn, letnik 46, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2023
192
Breiding, Matthew J. et al. “Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual Violence, Stalking, 
and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization—National Intimate Partner and 
Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011.” MMWR. Surveillance summaries 
63.8 (2014): 1–18.
Breuer, Joseph, and Sigmund Freud. Studies on Hysteria. London: Penguin Books, 1974.
Carr, Sarah, and Helen Spandler. “Hidden from History? A Brief Modern History 
of the Psychiatric ‘Treatment’ of Lesbian and Bisexual Women in England.” The 
Lancet Psychiatry 6.4 (2019): 289–290. 
Chambers, Clare. “Virgin Birth? Inconceivable, Surely … The Story That Shocked 
1950s Britain.” The Daily Mail. 26 July 2020.
Chambers, Clare. Small Pleasures. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd., 2020.
Frost, David M., and Michele J. Eliason. “Challenging the Assumption of Fusion in 
Female Same-Sex Relationships.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 38.1 (2014): 65–74.
Gorer, Peter Alfred. “Parthenogenesis in Human Beings.” The Lancet 268.6933 (1956): 
100.
Hirschfeld, Magnus. Sexual Anomalies and Perversions: Physical and Psychological 
Development, Diagnosis and Treatment. London: Encyclopedic Press, 1952.
Jennings, Rebecca. “‘The Most Uninhibited Party They’d Ever Been to’: The Postwar 
Encounter between Psychiatry and the British Lesbian, 1945–1971.” The Journal 
of British Studies 47.4 (2008): 883–904. 
Johnson, Sarah. “Small Pleasures.” The Booklist 118.1 (2021): 44.
Krestan, Jo-Ann, and Claudia S. Bepko. “The Problem of Fusion in Lesbian 
Relationships.” Family Process 19 (1980): 277–289.
Lewis, Robin J., Robert J. Milletich, Michelle L. Kelley, and Alex Woody. “Minority 
Stress, Substance Use, and Intimate Partner Violence Among Sexual Minority 
Women.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012): 247–256.  
Maria, C. “Separatism is Not a Luxury.” Lesbian Ethics 4.1 (1990): 1–21. 
MacMahon, Kathleen. “Messy Truths of Women’s Lives: Book Reviews. The 
Miraculous Mingles Brilliantly with the Everyday in Clare Chambers’s Perfectly 
Pitched Tale of a Virgin Birth in Post-war UK.” The Irish Times 11 July 2020, 
p. 1.
 “Medicine: Parthenogenesis?” The Time, 28 November 1955.
Milletich, Robert J., Leslie A. Gumienny, Michelle L. Kelley, and Gabrielle M. D’Lima. 
“Predictors of Women’s Same-Sex Partner Violence Perpetration.” Journal of 
Family Violence 29.6 (2014): 653–664. 
Nicholas, J. W., and Helen Spurway. “Parthenogenesis in Human Beings.” The 
Lancet, 268.6932 (1956): 47–48. 
Nicholas, J. W., and Stanley Balfour-Lynn. “Parthenogenesis in Human Beings.” The 
Lancet 268.6934 (1956): 147–148.
Platt, Robert, and Fred Stratton, “Ovarian Agenesis with Male Skin Sex: Evidence 
Against Parthenogenesis.” The Lancet 268.6934 (1956): 120–121. 
Rensenbrink, Greta. “Parthenogenesis and Lesbian Separatism: Regenerating Women’s 
Community through Virgin Birth in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s.” 
Journal of the History of Sexuality 19.2 (2010): 288–316.
Rosser, Sue V. “The Next Millennium Is Now Here: Women’s Studies Perspectives on 
Biotechnics and Reproductive Technologies.” Transformations 8.1 (1997): 1–27.
Schwander, Tanja. “Parthenogenesis.” Oxford Bibliographies in Evolutionary Biology. 
Oxford Bibliographies. 2014. The web.
Spencer, Stephanie. “Women’s Dilemmas in Postwar Britain: Career Stories for 
Adolescent Girls in the 1950s.” History of Education 29.4 (2000): 329–342.
Irina Rabinovich:     Parthenogenesis (“Virgin Birth”)
193
Waldner-Haugrud, Lisa K., Linda Vaden-Gratch and Brian Magruder. “Victimization 
and Perpetration Rates of Violence in Gay and Lesbian Relationships: Gender 
Issues Explored.” Violence and Victims 12.2 (1997): 173–184. 
Warth, Douglas. “Evil Men.” The Sunday Pictorial. 25 May 1952, p. 6.
West, Carolyn M. “Lesbian Intimate Partner Violence: Prevalence and Dynamics.” 
Journal of Lesbian Studies 6.1 (2002): 121–127.
Whiting, Audrey. “Virgin Births—Doctors Now Say—It Doesn’t Always Need a 
Man to Make a Baby.” The Sunday Pictorial. 6 November 1955, p. 1.
Partogeneza (»Deviško rojstvo«): Ženska, ki zaman 
išče priznanje
Ključne besede: angleška književnost / Chambers, Clare / spolne študije / partenogeneza 
/ lezbištvo / konservativizem / senzacionalistično novinarstvo
Prispevek pokaže, kako sodobna britanska pisateljica Clare Chambers v svo-
jem romanu Small Pleasures (2020) za prikaz zgodovinskih dogodkov v letih 
1955–1956 uporablja pojme feminizma četrtega vala, namreč resnični poskus 
dokazovanja partenogeneze (»deviškega rojstva«) z znanstvenimi metodami. 
Takšna analiza odraža pomembne družbene in kulturne spremembe zadnjih 
šestdesetih let na področju reproduktivnih pravic in avtonomije žensk, telesne 
podobe in lezbičnosti. Prispevek razkriva, da so se v nasprotju s konservativno 
povojno britansko družbo, ki je bila represivna do lezbištva in nenaklonjena 
zamisli o spočetju s  partenogenezo – ta je bila razumljena kot odstopanje 
od ustaljenih norm –, sodobni prikazi teh tem temeljito spremenili. V pri-
spevku še pokažemo, kako Chambers nakazuje mnogo sodobnejši, za lezbično 
skupnosti značilen pogled na partenogenezo, zlasti med pripadnicami lezbič-
nega separatizma. To stališče zaznamujejo tako utopične kot distopične ideje. 
Za zaključek opišemo vlogo senzacionalističnega/tabloidnega novinarstva pri 
vplivanju na javno mnenje in posledično pri oblikovanju družbenih in kultur-
nih konstruktov.
1. 01 Izvirni znanstveni članek / Original scientific article
UDK  821.111.09Chambers C. 
176.1:591.162 
305-055.2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/pkn.v46.i2.10