Constructions of “Infertility” and Some Lived Experiences of Involuntary Childlessness

Abstract

This article draws on data from a feminist, qualitative social work research project on women's experiences of involuntary childlessness in the context of assisted reproduction. It argues that the dominant construction of ''infertility'' is partial, biased, and inaccurate and that it serves to maintain infertility as a ''woman's problem'' to be addressed ideally via biomedicine and individualized approaches to the delivery of services. With reference to the background literature, women's lived experiences of involuntary childlessness are explored. An alternative, multidimensional construction of involuntary childlessness is proposed and implications for social work in reproductive health and directions for further research are presented.This article presents some of the findings from a larger qualitative research project on women's experiences of and need for support in relation to assisted reproduction. Specifically, it explores the lived experiences of 28 Australian women in relation to ''infertility'' and proposes an alternative, more inclusive, and arguably more accurate construction of ''involuntary childlessness.'' In this article, I argue that the dominant construction of infertility comes from a typically biomedical perspective, rather than from a biopsychosocial, human rights perspective. Using a phenomenological, feminist, grounded theory approach, I explore the experiential knowledge of women who have used reproductive technology to attempt to redress infertility in order to construct an alternative view and to recognize their epistemic agency. The implications of this alternative construction for social work practice in this field are discussed along with directions for further research. Before the participants' lived experiences of involuntary childlessness are explored, a brief, contextual review of the literature is presented to indicate some of the dominant constructions and some competing constructions of infertility.

Social Exclusion of Australian Childless Women in Their Reproductive Years

“…For example, reflecting previous research that voluntarily childless women experienced pressure from family and friends to become childed (Rich et al, 2011), all types of childless women experienced such pressure in all domains of life. Many women were expected to justify being childless, supporting earlier findings that being childless was a discrediting attribute that women were required to justify or conceal in order to maintain credibility (Bell, 2013;Rich et al, 2011). In addition, confirming and expanding upon research finding childless women felt workplaces prioritised childed people's needs for annual and carers leave, flexible work and work-life balance, and that others doubted their professional credibility (Doyle et al, 2013;Rich et al, 2011), many women experienced subordination of their needs to those of childed people, assumptions they lacked qualities only childed women could possess, and discrediting of their views and expertise, in all domains of life.…”

“…Furthermore, women who were permanently childless felt judged as failures. In addition, some circumstantially childless and voluntarily childless women who were permanently childless, and undecided women who were considering becoming permanently childless, experienced divorce or separation from partners who wanted to become childed, building upon earlier research with involuntarily childless women (Bell, 2013).…”

“…Rather, their internalised, disempowered or empowered responses influenced experiences of social exclusion. Expanding upon research with involuntarily childless women (Bell, 2013), some involuntarily and circumstantially childless women who perceived themselves as failures, incomplete and unfulfilled, were deeply cognisant of being excluded. Furthermore, while some women inadvertently exacerbated exclusion by avoiding stigmatising experiences, others made empowered choices to build lives in which being childless was valued and affirmed.…”

“…Some involuntarily childless women internalised pronatalism, perceiving themselves as failures and incomplete (Bell, 2013;Sternke & Abrahamson, 2015). There is, however, limited research investigating the exclusion of childless women in their reproductive years from the social domain, which encompasses social networks, support and interaction, and social and leisure participation (see for example, Albertini & Mencarini, 2014;Bell, 2013;Debest & Mazuy, 2014;Doyle, Pooley, & Breen, 2013;McNamee & James, 2012;Sternke & Abrahamson, 2015), the service domain, which incorporates availability, accessibility, affordability, appropriateness and adequacy of services (see for example Baker, 2003;Hammarberg, Astbury, & Baker, 2001;Mollen, 2006;Onat & Beji, 2012;Parry, 2004) and the economic domain, including participation in employment, the nature and quality of working lives, and material and financial resources (see for example Doyle et al, 2013;Fieder, Huber, & Bookstein, 2011;Huber, Bookstein, & Fieder, 2010;Malik & Coulson, 2013;Rich et al, 2011). There is no existing research in the civic domain, which includes participation in community and political activities, groups and organisations.…”

‘Together … for only a moment’: British newspaper constructions of altruistic non-commercial surrogate motherhood

“…Adaptation to this biogenetic difference with the child may be difficult as is reported in gamete donation (Frith, 2015), or lead to a moral discord as reported in commercial transnational surrogacy (Arvidsson et al, 2015). Additionally, the infertility itself may be stigmatising (Bell, 2013), leading to further cognitive dissonance about the practice of surrogacy (van den Akker 2001). The same principles do not apply to gay or single men or single older women, because in their case it is not useful to disguise mode of conception, and surrogacy may offer a preferred option with a closer genetic tie and the promise of a new-born baby than would be possible in adoption.…”