Gay dads in the UK: Rewriting the fatherhood manual?

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