Societal Views of Surrogacy—Responding and Reframing: Gay Israeli Fathers

The present study aims to explore gay Israeli fathers’ responses and resistance to societal criticism on their decision to become parents through transnational surrogacy. The authors interviewed 39 Israeli gay men who became parents via transnational gestational surrogacy using in-depth, semistructured interviews. Analysis of the interviews suggest that the gay fathers responded to societal perceptions on their choice of surrogacy, which they interpreted as heterosexist and hostile, by relating them to Israeli dominant ideologies and constructing a counter discourse that frames surrogacy as an intimate process fostering gender and parental change. Yet, while the participants portray surrogacy as a catalyst for social change, their accounts are embedded within an Israeli context defined by pronatalist and neoliberal ideologies, showing how accounts of change are intertwined within hegemonic ideologies.

Barriers and Stigma Experienced by Gay Fathers and Their Children

BACKGROUND Gay men have become fathers in the context of a heterosexual relationship, by adoption, by donating sperm to 1 or 2 lesbian women and subsequently sharing parenting responsibilities, and/or by engaging the services of a surrogate pregnancy carrier. Despite legal, medical, and social advances, gay fathers and their children continue to experience stigma and avoid situations because of fear of stigma. Increasing evidence reveals that stigma is associated with reduced well-being of children and adults, including psychiatric symptoms and suicidality. METHODS Men throughout the United States who identified as gay and fathers completed an online survey. Dissemination of the survey was enhanced via a “snowball” method, yielding 732 complete responses from 47 states. The survey asked how the respondent had become a father, whether he had encountered barriers, and whether he and his child(ren) had experienced stigma in various social contexts. RESULTS Gay men are increasingly becoming fathers via adoption and with assistance of an unrelated pregnancy carrier. Their pathways to fatherhood vary with socioeconomic class and the extent of legal protections in their state. Respondents reported barriers to becoming a father and stigma associated with fatherhood in multiple social contexts, most often in religious institutions. Fewer barriers and less stigma were experienced by fathers living in states with more legal protections. CONCLUSIONS Despite growing acceptance of parenting by same-gender adults, barriers and stigma persist. States’ legal and social protections for lesbian and gay individuals and families appear to be effective in reducing experiences of stigma for gay fathers.

Study urges researchers to take into account the effect of intersectional “identities”, such as black single-mothers, Native American women, or gay fathers

Purpose The existing work-life literature is full of studies that consider the influence of a single social identity, which is “an individual’s self-concept derived from membership in a social group.” There are many values and emotions attached to a social identity, but in the modern world, individuals often belong to more than one social grouping. Therefore, the authors wanted to discuss the effect of belonging to “multiply stigmatised groups.” Design/methodology/approach The authors began their study with a review of the literature in the work-life space on multiply stigmatized identities. They included ProQuest searches of 104 databases using key words such as “religion”, “ethnicity”, “race”, “disability”, “sexual orientation”, “religion” and “intersectionality.” They found 31 papers that focused on the intersection of two, or more, identities. Findings The study provides a framework for future research into the impact of multiple identities on issues of power and privilege. If intersectionality is not considered, the authors say, there will be “unidentified needs, ignored values, unresolved conflicts and unhelpful advice.” Originality/value The authors said they had written the paper in response to the criticism that work-life research tends to focuses on the experiences of middle, or upper-class, younger, white, western and heterosexual women.

Impact of New Family Forms on Parenting and Child Development

The structure of families has changed significantly over the last 40 years due to changes in legislation, technology, and societal attitudes. This article examines parenting and child development in new family forms, i.e., family forms that did not exist or were not visible until the latter part of the twentieth century. First, we give an overview of the historical and current context of new family forms. Then, we discuss parenting and child development in six new family types: families with lesbian mothers, families with gay fathers, intentional single-mother families, donor conception families, surrogacy families, and families with trans parents. Next, we discuss how research on the impact of new family forms on parenting and child development can inform our understanding of the relative influence of family processes and family structure on child development and parenting. We conclude with directions for future research.

Doing Family Differently in School-to-Home Contexts: Gay Fathers at the Schoolhouse Door

Purpose: This qualitative, phenomenological study explores gay fatherhood visibility in schools. The study was guided by prior research on families headed by lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer (LGBTQ) parents, as well as the theoretical exploration of “doing family” for LGBTQ-headed households and queer families. Data Collection and Analysis: Data primarily consisted of two, face-to-face, semistructured interviews with 22 gay-fathered households living in one of two different community types: gay-friendly areas, or those known for LGBTQ inclusion and protection, and intolerant towns, or those with little-to-no evidence of inclusion and protection. Additionally, this study included artifacts such as handbooks, letters about events, and documents related to school curricula. All data were analyzed inductively. Findings: Nearly all fathers came out, or had disclosed their sexual orientation to school personnel—particularly in gay-friendly areas. Nevertheless, findings indicate that assumptions of heterosexuality persisted in both gay-friendly and intolerant areas to some extent. Some attempts to be more inclusive and representative of gay-fathered families depended on community type, but even these attempts did not recognize a wider spectrum of family configurations that may constitute gay fatherhood. Implications: This study raises questions about how school personnel, and leaders in particular, consider a wider spectrum of family configurations as they interact with students and students’ families. The findings provide insight into future scholarship focused on gay fatherhood, as well as how leadership programs can prepare leaders with the necessary skills and knowledge to interact with nondominant family structures.