1 / 21

Gay dads in the UK: Rewriting the fatherhood manual?

Gay dads in the UK: Rewriting the fatherhood manual?. Jeremy Davies, PhD student Dept of Politics, University of Manchester www.manchester.ac.uk Publications manager, Fatherhood Institute www.fatherhoodinstitute.org. Overview of the study.

nolcha
Download Presentation

Gay dads in the UK: Rewriting the fatherhood manual?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Gay dads in the UK: Rewriting the fatherhood manual? Jeremy Davies, PhD student Dept of Politics, University of Manchester www.manchester.ac.uk Publications manager, Fatherhood Institute www.fatherhoodinstitute.org

  2. Overview of the study • PhD (part-time) funded by UK Economic and Social Research Council • Survey of 32 non-heterosexual fathers and interviews with 15: ten who became dads via heterosexual relationships and five who were ‘out’ when they became fathers • Focus on the “doing” of fatherhood rather than the more theoretical approach of “families of choice” research

  3. The participants • 32 gay dads from across the UK. Of these, 27 had become fathers through heterosexual relationships • Of the 27, 9 were married to their children’s mothers (these I call Cat As) and 18 were divorced/separated (these are Cat Bs) • The remaining 5 had become fathers as ‘out’ gay men; of these, 4 were ‘donor dads’ and 1 was a long-term foster carer (these are Cat Cs)

  4. The survey Two ways of measuring involvement: • Contact levels: how many overnights in a typical month, and details of holidays etc • Self-reported Parenting Involvement scores (Other stuff including age, disclosure of sexuality, numbers/ages of children, occupation etc, also captured)

  5. The 32 dads broke down into 4 groups: High (>75% overnights): 8 from Cat A (marrieds), 2 from Cat B (divorcees) Medium (25-74% overnights): 5 from Cat B (divorcees), 1 from Cat A (marrieds) Low (1-24% overnights): 6 from Cat B (divorcees), 2 from Cat C (outs) Minimal (no overnights) 5 from Cat B (divorcees), 3 from Cat C (outs) Contact levels

  6. Parental involvement scores • Self-reported, 360 degree summaries of ‘who does what’: starting from the child • Trying to capture the full picture of all adults’ input, in however many households • 24 activities/tasks, for which participants must define the relevant adults and apportion percentages that add up to 100% between them

  7. PI scores – the tasks Examples of activities/tasks: • Bringing in the money; providing/arranging educational activities; attending parents’ evenings; maintaining the domestic environment e.g. DIY, gardening; cooking the children’s meals; washing the children’s clothes; administering discipline; setting the disciplinary boundaries

  8. PI scores – the data captured • Scores for each dad for each activity/task • Overall scores for each dad averaged across activities/tasks • Averaged scores across all activities/tasks, by ‘type’ of dad and other adult (i.e. father, mother, father’s partner, mother’s partner, etc) • Averaged scores for each particular activity/task, by adult ‘type’

  9. PI scores – main ‘headlines’ Averaged scores across all activities/tasks, by adult ‘type’: By gay dad ‘type’: Cat A: 55%, Cat B: 39%, Cat C: 8% By contact level ‘group’: Gp 1: 66%, Gp 2: 39%; Gp 3: 17%; Gp 4: 15% The more ‘traditional’ the context, the higher the involvement

  10. PI scores – results/1 Averaged scores for each activity/task, by adult ‘type’…some examples: All gay dads: Bringing in the money spent on the children (65%); providing/arranging educational activities (54%); attending parents’ evenings (50%); saving for the children’s future (50%); setting the disciplinary boundaries (46%)

  11. PI scores – results/2 All mothers: Cooking the children’s meals (69%); washing their clothes (65%); taking to/from school (64%); taking to doctor/dentist (62%); looking after when sick (61%) Overall the mothers’ involvement is higher and tends to centre on more ‘female’ tasks

  12. PI scores – results/3 Cat A fathers (‘marrieds’): Themselves: bringing in money (84%); deciding/distributing pocket money (68%); saving for children’s future (67%); providing educational activities (67%); attending parents’ evenings (66%) The mothers: personal care – cutting nails, arranging haircuts etc (63%); cooking meals (63%); washing clothes (59%); keeping house clean (58%); taking to doctor (58%) These dads are the most highly involved, but their involvement looks gendered

  13. PI scores – results/4 Cat C fathers (‘outs’): Themselves: providing/arranging educational activities (19%); playing and developing children’s ideas (16%); administering discipline (15%); setting religious/cultural background (14%); attending school plays etc (10%) The mothers: deciding/distributing pocket money (87%); cooking meals (84%); intimate care – bathing, nappies etc (84%); organising/monitoring time with friends (80%); washing clothes (80%) These dads are the least involved, and their involvement is less ‘hands on’

  14. PI scores – results/5 Gay dads’ partners: Playing/ developing children’s ideas (21%); helping with homework etc (18%); setting cultural/religious background (15%); setting disciplinary boundaries (13%); administering discipline (13%) Some interesting ‘context setting’ tasks being performed Mothers’ partners: Maintaining home – DIY etc (33%); cleaning home (30%); taking to/from activities (29%); taking to/from school (26%); looking after when sick (22%) Significant contributions, mainly ‘hands on’

  15. Qualitative interviews 15 semi-structured interviews: Cat A dads (‘marrieds’): 4 Cat B dads (‘divorceds’): 6 Cat C dads (‘outs’): 5 • Perceptions of fatherhood • Experiences of combining non-heterosexuality and fatherhood • Negotiation between parents and management of parenting across households

  16. Theme 1 – ‘Scripts’ for family life • Across-the-board belief in an inherited, hetero-normative fatherhood ‘manual’ • Descriptions of ‘traditional’ vs ‘new dad’ fathering models – both assume heterosexuality • Among Cat As and Bs, a striving for an idealised/ assumed model of ‘family life’ – a ‘bigger picture’ for which heterosexuality was the key qualifying criterion, and from which flowed the ‘proof’ of heterosexuality they craved • Among Cat Cs, a belief in a relentlessly positive redefining of ‘family’ through creative non-heterosexual endeavour

  17. Theme 2: Juggling identities • Guilt/pain/complex personal journeys for Cat A and B dads (mainly involving a level of secrecy) and their (ex)wives and children • Pressure on relationship with (new) male partners, and partners’ need to define their own role in the absence of a clear pre-existing ‘script’ • Experiences of homophobia and the ‘heterosexual assumption’ from family members, friends and public services

  18. Theme 3: Exclusions from “doing” On a ‘structural’ level: • Residence (or not) was closely associated with parental involvement level. In almost all cases the children lived mainly with their mothers, and the dads talked about mothers as ‘primary’ parent • Cat A dads did the most – but their involvement was quite gendered • Cat B dads’ involvement varied but was lower and they described themselves as ‘secondary’ parents; • Cat C dads had low involvement levels, and looked more ‘avuncular’. Mothers in donor arrangements had highest involvement levels and may seek low levels of paternal involvement

  19. Theme 3 continued On a ‘conceptual’ level: • Across-the-board assumption that mothers are the central parenting figure • Perceived impossibility of being an active/equal parent and gay • Guilt may push Cat A/B dads to ‘self-exclude’ from on the one hand, ‘out’ non-heterosexual identities and on the other, higher involvement • Lack of clear alternative ‘scripts’ may exclude Cat C dads from higher involvement

  20. Overall conclusions • No one stereotype of the ‘typical’ gay father ‘fits’ • Gendered assumptions and practices around family life/ parenting loom large in all gay dads’ lives – regardless of their route to fatherhood • The ‘heterosexual assumption’ around family life/parenting leads to a lack of ‘scripts’ to guide high(er) parental involvement • More research needed, particularly on gay dads’ ‘doing’ of fatherhood (especially Cat Cs); and on public services’ engagement with gay fathers

  21. Why does all this matter? • Sheds light on a relatively unknown sub-category of fathers • Helps us question the heterosexual assumptions of (UK) family policy • Helps unpick the myths around gay dads • Contributes to evidence base by which to assess and develop policy and practice on fatherhood and non-heterosexual families

More Related