Men and infertility: Insights from the sociology of gender

Abstract

This review explores the framing of men and infertility in recent interdisciplinary social science research. I illustrate how men's diverse institutional roles surrounding medicalized experiences of infertility are critical for understanding inequality in reproduction. Situating research on men and infertility in the theoretical framework of gender as social structure shows how men's secondary position in reproduction can be seen across institutional roles, which include men as patients, men as partners, men as sperm donors, and men as doctors. Men's experiences with reproductive medicine often reinforce men's marginal position in reproductive medicine through institutionalized arrangements; yet, men are intimately and structurally involved in reproductive decisions. I argue that bringing gender to the center of research on infertility could make clear the many structural ways women and women's bodies are controlled, regulated, and treated by reproductive medicine.

“I’m Not Really 100% a Woman If I Can’t Have a Kid”: Infertility and the Intersection of Gender, Identity, and the Body

“…This is unsurprising given that historically the body, particularly reproductive capacity, has been used as a way to distinguish women as different from men (Daniels 2006). The medicalization of infertility perpetuates this essentialist distinction by focusing its procedures on the woman’s body (Halcomb 2018). In turn, men’s physical experiences of infertility are not only left out, but in doing so the medical establishment also reinforces men’s traditional roles of being the “rock” for women’s emotions and the voice of reason in decision making (Bell 2015).…”

“…This is particularly true for women, as the medialization of infertility excludes men from its treatment. In turn, the female body takes center stage, resulting in women taking responsibility for infertility regardless of diagnostic status (Halcomb 2018). Brooke, a white woman of high SES, rejected the notion that she is infertile as a result of her biological capacities:I am not infertile.…”

Reproductive justice for the invisible infertile: A critical examination of reproductive surveillance and stratification

“…Men's experience of infertility is a good example of this. While cis men are frequently invisible in RH statistics, public rhetoric, and even clinical spaces to some extent (Barnes, ; Halcomb, ), their ability to access RH services through the hypervisibility of female partners and through means such as private insurance still allow many infertile men to access healthcare and, ultimately, meet their needs. However, a working‐class gay man, whose male privilege but reproductive invisibility intersect with his economic disadvantage and status as a sexual minority, would be far less likely to have his reproductive needs met.…”

“…Previous literature reviews have highlighted the experience and social construction of infertility (Greil, Mcquillan, & Slauson‐Blevins, ; Greil, Slauson‐Blevins, & Mcquillan, ), the impact of infertility on sexuality (Tao, Coates, & Maycock, ), gender differences in adjustment to infertility (Ying, Wu, & Loke, ), male infertility scholarship (Culley, Hudson, & Lohan, ; Halcomb, ; Martins, Pereira, Pedro, Schmidt, & Costa, ), and feminist critiques of reproductive technologies (Thompson, ). This review differs from previous work in scope and framing.…”

“…Such socioemotional factors may be barriers to seeking treatment. Similarly, infertile men may feel marginalized by the diagnosis and treatment process (Halcomb, ) and may further internalize medical intervention as a negative reflection on their masculinity (Barnes, ). Seeking medical treatment for infertility can be an extremely costly process, in terms of both financial and time resources (Wu, Elliott, Katz, & Smith, ), and so may be out of reach for many working‐class individuals who may not have access to premium health insurance plans and/or independent financial means for meeting the high cost of treatment (Bell, , ).…”