“Men Always Adopt”

Introduction

Studies about infertility and reproduction show that men and women live and face difficulties in conceiving differently (Becker, 2000; Franklin, 1997; Greil, Leitko, & Porter, 1988; Greil, Slauson-Blevins, & McQuillan, 2010; Kowalcek, Wihstutz, Buhrow, & Diedrich, 2001; Thompson, 2005). Van Balen and Inhorn (2002) claim that women are the most affected by infertility because they feel more social pressure to become mothers. The cultural association between femininity and motherhood and the focus on reproductive treatment in women’s bodies together largely explain why men’s experience regarding infertility and reproduction has been studied so little (Dolan & Coe, 2011; McCreight, 2004; Throsby & Gill, 2004). Research about infertility and reproduction focuses on women’s experience and in most cases men’s experience are overlooked. Inhorn (2007) indicates that social science research is full of studies describing women’s reproductive lives. In contrast, studies focusing on men’s perception of reproduction are scarce and are usually based on women’s perception of men or on interviews with couples where men are not completely free to go into detail about their experience (Throsby & Gill, 2004). There have been even fewer studies about men’s perspectives in developing countries (Dyer, Abrahams, Mokoena, & Van der Spuy, 2004). Silva and Machado (2011) and Webb and Daniluk (1999) claim that the association between fertility and virility hampers the inclusion of men in studies about infertility and assisted reproduction.

The purpose of this article is to understand how men who have faced difficulties in conceiving with their partners and have become fathers by means of nonnormative modes of reproduction see and portray themselves in the reproductive process. Narratives by fathers who have resorted to assisted reproduction and/or adoption are analyzed in order to learn how they describe their participation in these processes.

The article aims to contribute to the growing discussion about men and reproduction by analyzing men’s experience with the reproduction process through analysis of individual interviews with men. Second, the contribution of this article can be seen in the comparison of men’s experience with assisted reproduction treatments and adoption. According to Melhuus and Howell (2009), new reproductive technologies and adoption have seldom been jointly analyzed by social scientists, even though the two authors believe that these social phenomena belong to the same order. They propose that these two phenomena should be studied as two kinds of assisted procreation and suggest that parallel examination of these phenomena enriches the understanding of both. Third, the article recognizes the importance of the local context in the construction of masculinity during reproduction by conducting research in a developing country outside the Euro-American framework. Finally, using a narrative analysis to observe how men portray themselves and describe their participation in reproductive processes allows these fathers to be seen as part of their context emphasizing their agency and their lived experience (Riessman, 2008). ¹

Before presenting the analysis of male reproduction narratives, I review some of the relevant literature on masculinity, infertility, and reproduction. Unfortunately, the literature that studies male participation in adoption processes is very scarce. Literature on the adoption process focuses on female experience (birth and adoptive mothers) or studies the adoptive couple as a unit, without exploring the particularities of the experiences of men (Fisher, 2003; Goldberg, Downing, & Richardson, 2009; Goldberg, Kinkler, Richardson, & Downing, 2011; Williams, 1992). In the pages that follow, I briefly describe the methods of the larger study from which these data are drawn. Later, I present and analyze the selected narratives that represent variations of the male experience in assisted reproduction and adoption processes.

Masculinity and Reproduction

Studies focused on how men participate and understand reproduction in the context of issues such as infertility, assisted reproduction, the loss of a child, and childbirth analyze how these men approach or move away from, reproduce, or challenge prevailing or traditional masculinity in their society. The concept used in several of these studies is “hegemonic masculinity,” understood as “the currently most honored way of being a man” (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 832). Inhorn and Wentzell (2011) claim that hegemonic masculinity does not only correspond to an identity or expectations associated with a masculine role but also to the way things are done. This masculinity does not constitute a set of fixed features but rather a position that depends on the subject’s social context. Men tend to relate to the hegemonic male stereotypes in their local context in complex, conflictive, and transformational ways. In the following three studies, authors review how the experience of male infertility in the United States, Canada, and the Middle East lead men to reinforce or contest hegemonic masculinity.

In her ethnography of assisted reproduction clinics in the United States, Thompson (2005) observes that the stigma of infertility leads men to feel that their masculine identity is threatened. To restore and protect this jeopardized masculinity, these men seek alternatives to prove their virility, even resorting to a parodic representation of exaggerated heteronormativity or hypermasculinity. Male identity is thus repaired by falling back on stereotypical gender identities that represent an exaggerated version of gender roles in an ideal nuclear family.

In their analysis of men’s experience of male factor infertility in Canada, Webb and Daniluk (1999) also notice the association between fertility and virility. The authors stress that when facing infertility, men initially follow traditional masculine patterns. Even though it is very painful for them to be diagnosed as infertile, they feel the need to be the strong one in the relationship. However, after accepting that they are infertile, these men have to redefine what it means to be a man and a husband, abandoning the traditional gender role and rebuilding how they see themselves as complete and competent men, regardless of their fertility status.

In their research about male infertility, Inhorn and Wentzell (2011) explain that men in the Middle East are experiencing new ways of “being a man,” which contrast with masculinities perceived to be hegemonic and harmful. The authors propose the concept of “emerging masculinities” to account for changes taking place in the way men represent their masculinity. Gender dominance, aggressiveness, and the association with fertility and virility characterize stereotypes of local masculinity in the Middle East. According to Inhorn and Wentzell, men who face infertility in the Middle East are acting as men in new ways, valuing and seeking a tender, communicative, and romantic relationship with their wives.

Throsby and Gill (2004) analyze men’s feelings, beliefs, and practices regarding in vitro fertilization (IVF) based on conjoint interviews with infertile couples that have unsuccessfully undergone IVF in the United Kingdom. The authors have concluded that meanings associated with IVF are influenced by hegemonic masculinity for both men and women, since masculinity is associated with potency or virility. The authors claim that in the context of IVF, gender relations continue to be very traditional. For example, men state that they have to be strong for their wives.

Beyond infertility, the studies of McCreight (2004) and Dolan and Coe (2011) analyze how men’s experience in reproductive contexts lacks legitimacy as opposed to the centrality of women’s experience. According to McCreight (2004), men’s suffering after pregnancy loss in Ireland is made invisible. Men are expected to be emotionally strong in order to support their partners, who are assumed to be those truly affected. Dolan and Coe (2011) conclude that in the context of pregnancy and childbirth in the United Kingdom, men place themselves in a marginal position. Physical pain experienced by women has a legitimacy that is not available to them. Men turn to distinctive indicators of masculine practices that allow them to represent roles in accordance with hegemonic masculinity. Men thus come across as stoic and self-reliant. In turn, in the context of childbirth, men redefine their hegemonic male identity to include features generally associated with female identity, such as being attentive, helpful, and concerned.

No research has been conducted about masculinity and infertility in Chile. Olavarría (2001a, 2001b;) has developed a line of research about paternity, attempting to account for local hegemonic masculinity characteristics. According to this author, work, paternity, and men’s role as providers are still essential to the construction of male identity in Chile. Throughout their lives, men are required to pass a series of tests and, in order to consider themselves to be adults, must “become men,” which is to say: being sexually initiated, having children, and working for a salary. According to narratives analyzed by Olavarría, a man in Chile has to be a protector, sure of himself, rational, emotionally controlled, brave, physically strong, heterosexual, and sexually active. Paternity is a fundamental step in the path of an adult man, since procreation proves his heterosexuality and masculinity. When he becomes a father, a man becomes responsible for others who depend on him, and here it is vitally important that he deploy the aforementioned attributes to protect his family.

At the same time, however, Valdés (Valdés, 2009; Valdés & Godoy, 2008) identifies the appearance of a “new father” among young Chilean men. These men try to move away from the model of the distant and authoritarian provider handed down from former generations. This “new father” is characterized by a close and affectionate relationship with his children: he is present at childbirth, he takes his children to school, and is seen playing with them in public spaces. Being a close father has become a core attribute of masculinity among young men in Chile.

Some of the conclusions we can make from literature that has analyzed men’s experience during reproduction are that men associate fertility with virility and that they tend to feel that they are in a marginal or secondary position in the reproductive process. Authors who have studied the relation between men and reproduction argue that men either reproduce or challenge hegemonic masculinity patterns in specific local and reproductive contexts. In addition, an important gap can be evidenced in the study of men’s participation in adoption processes. The purpose of this article is to address these issues and contribute to understanding how men see their participation in the reproductive process through the analysis and comparison of men’s narratives of assisted reproduction and adoption.

Methodology

The findings reported here are drawn from a qualitative study conducted in Santiago, Chile, funded by the National Fund for the Development of Scientific and Technological Research. Forty-nine in-depth interviews were conducted by the researcher and author of this article (an upper middle class female in her 30s ² ) during 2008. Twelve of these interviews were conducted with men on their own; 4 interviews were conducted with both members of the couple and 33 with women. All the interviews were conducted with parents who have faced difficulties in conceiving with their partners and have become fathers or mothers by means of assisted reproductive technologies or adoption. People who required assistance for their reproductive process were included in the study because they had to make decisions that explicitly display processes people who have biological children take for granted.

The study was approved by the Universidad Diego Portales Research Ethics Committee. The participants read and signed an informed consent agreement indicating that their participation in the study would be voluntary and anonymous. Pseudonyms are used to protect the identity of persons interviewed. All interviews were recorded and transcribed.

To explore how men see themselves and portray themselves in their reproductive processes, unstructured interviews that favor the emergence of narratives describing men’s experience in assisted reproduction and adoption were conducted. Sixteen men were asked to tell how they had experienced the process of paternity from the very first time they thought “I want to be a father.” This request led to a story in which the interviewee organized and assigned meaning to the experiences he had gone through, retrospectively reconstructing the path he took to become a father. The interviewer allowed these narratives to flow while attempting to reduce her interventions to a minimum (clarifying questions, expressions indicating interest, and helping the person continue the story). The narratives created in the interviews provide insights into how men build their gender identity regarding reproduction (Riessman, 2002).

Assisted Reproduction Narratives

When narrating their reproductive processes, men tend to start the story by highlighting that having children was not a major concern in their lives at first. Throughout their stories, they go about associating reproduction with women in different ways. They indicate that women are the ones who get pregnant and are more centered on maternity than men are. This association between femininity and motherhood is reinforced for men when they witness the interventions women’s bodies are subjected to in medical examinations and during assisted reproduction treatment. This leads them to state that the experience is much different for women than it is for men: women suffer with the treatment and when the child does not come. Francisco and his wife were never clearly diagnosed as infertile and after a few years of treatment they decided to adopt. He states,

It’s different for women. Our experience was different for her than it was for me. Because you are more, your biology is simpler and obviously your psychological and emotional experience is associated with your biology. Since your biology is simpler, you are too. On a personal level, it’s not so frustrating when these elements fail. . . . The place where the miracle will take place is in the woman’s body and in her biology, not in ours. . . . When it doesn’t happen, it is much harder on the woman than it is on us.

Men perceive their participation in assisted reproduction treatment as limited to delivering a semen sample and providing support for their partners. When describing treatment, they do not introduce themselves as active characters. For example, they do not describe episodes of them finding information about treatment, making appointments with doctors, or buying medication. In addition, their stories do not assign very much importance to the experience of semen collection, since they think this is a little thing compared with what their wives had to go through. For example, Fernando, who was diagnosed with male infertility and conceived a child after a first try with IVF, said, “All I had to do was deliver a sperm sample, that was it.” In their narratives about treatment, men highlight their role as support providers for their wives. They consequently take a secondary role, accompanying the “protagonist of the story.”

Alberto (father of two children by means of IVF) and his partner Claudia underwent treatment for 5 years before conceiving their first child. Alberto’s narrative shows that men see themselves in the reproduction process as playing a secondary role to a woman who plays the leading role. Alberto says that he supported his wife’s wishes to become a mother:

This became a struggle to have children, because in the end we wanted to have children and we had to have children. That was the logical process. In addition, Claudia just loves babies and she so much wanted to have children. She was so focused on having children that in the end one addresses the issue, I wasn’t as desperate as she was, but in the end we did everything because I could see that’s what she wanted, otherwise she would not have been happy deep down.

In his story, Alberto goes on to briefly describe how they visited different clinics and physicians, without providing many details about the medical interventions. He says that his wife Claudia was the first to get concerned when they were unable to have a natural pregnancy. He adds that the cause of infertility had not been detected and that the doctors explained that there are couples who are infertile for unknown reasons. Claudia is an active character in Alberto’s narrative and it was she who asked the doctor to stop trying artificial insemination and to opt for IVF. Claudia got pregnant during the first IVF cycle. One year later they started trying for the second child. To their surprise, this time treatment was unsuccessful. In Alberto’s words:

It was really hard, even harder than with the first one. I think that we said to ourselves “OK, now we are in control of the situation” and realizing that we were not in control of the situation was really hard, hard for . . . hard for both of us and even harder for Claudia.

The couple underwent several IVF cycles with no success until at one point (according to Alberto) Claudia was overwhelmed by the situation. Alberto stated that the physician had guaranteed them that this time the cycle was going to be successful:

“The embryos are spectacular, so this is going to work for sure” and it didn’t work. Just one frozen embryo was left and we, Claudia then said “You know what, this is just too much for me.” So I said “OK, let’s go to the United States, let’s give it one last try, let’s go to the best place there is and if that doesn’t work, we can forget about it and try adopting.”

The couple did not end up traveling to the United States. Claudia had the last frozen embryo implanted and this led to her second pregnancy. Throughout Alberto’s narrative, Claudia is the active one, the one who looks for solutions and makes the decisions. Alberto’s role is to follow her and support her in these decisions. However, when she said that she was overwhelmed, in his narrative Alberto came up with a solution and made decisions. This time, when Alberto proposes bringing treatment to an end or to a limit, it is the only time he portrays himself as an active and assertive character.

In separate interviews, both Alberto and Claudia told the story of how their two children arrived. Although both narratives agree in almost all the facts shared, there are some noticeable differences. In his narrative, Alberto provides few details about medical intervention and makes no mention of his own emotions. Alberto tells the story from the couple’s point of view, constantly using first person plural. In Alberto’s story, Claudia plays the leading role, but he is included because he is part of the couple, part of this “we” that makes decisions and takes action to have biological children (“we had our first child”). His role in the story is relevant because he keeps going and supports his wife. He even stands up as a rational man when she is overwhelmed and he proposes that they travel to the United States for one last try.

Claudia tells a much a longer and much more complex story, describing medical intervention in detail and constantly referring to her own decisions, emotions, and frustrations. Claudia’s narrative focuses on her own story. She tells the story using first person singular (“it took me 5 years to have my first child”). Alberto plays a remote secondary role in the narrative, even less relevant than the physicians. Claudia’s story makes no mention of Alberto suggesting they travel to the United States for one last try or of him suggesting the possibility of adopting a child.

Fernando’s narrative is a good example of how hard it is for men to legitimate their experience or to question women’s role in the reproductive process. This is atypical compared with stories shared by the rest of the interviewees in that he tells a long story with several details and even makes mention of his own emotions (such as anger and frustration). Fernando was diagnosed as infertile and tells how his wife and physicians pressured him to try to have a biological child by means of assisted reproduction. A long way into the interview after Fernando had shared most of his experience regarding the diagnosis, exams and treatment in first person singular, his wife Viviana entered the room and sat down at a distance. The following extract shows how Fernando’s story changes after Viviana arrived.

Before Viviana entered the room, Fernando played the leading role in his story. When she entered, he pushed his own experience aside and minimized his participation in treatment and started to talk about her suffering. Finally, he gave her the floor by asking a specific question about treatment. She took control and then went into a detailed description of the medical intervention, her own suffering and the lack of support she received from her husband. He therefore took a secondary supporting role and she took the main role of the person suffering.

Adoption Narratives

The reproduction narratives of men who had adopted children first described their experience regarding treatment and then their experience and participation in the adoption process(es). As indicated hereinafter, men’s stories about adoption have very different characteristics than their stories about assisted reproduction.

Renato and his wife decided to adopt after dismissing the possibility of having children by means of egg donation. Renato tells a long and detailed story describing the processes of adopting his two children. He is the protagonist in his story. Renato knew from the start that his wife was not fertile and he portrays himself as a hero who sacrifices his chance to have biological children because of his love for his wife:

For me, personally, the fact that I made this decision at a very young age, because it meant giving up the biological possibility, clearly . . . there was no chance of having a biological family with Rebeca. I was always proud of this and I don’t hesitate to share my story or to talk about it. No matter how it happens, if you are a biological or adoptive father, you are a father. I feel very proud of that, I think it was, it is a major test. . . . I discovered ways where I had to prove it to myself and prove it to other people that I could be a father.

Bernardo and his wife first had a biological child that was born with serious health problems. After several miscarriages, they decided to adopt in order to have a second child. He tells a story showing how adoption is experienced as a reflective, learning, and preparation process, where men have a legitimate space to participate in decision making. His story also shows that Bernardo includes himself in the process when describing adoption as “a longer pregnancy”:

It is a really beautiful process because you go through a sort of, you have a longer pregnancy is what we could call it. But you also prepare yourself for the issue, that is to say that you start asking yourself questions you hadn’t initially asked . . . ,you start making decisions for example. Ehh, I remember that with the parents in the group we had discussions about the traits of our boy or girl, sex, gender of the boy or girl, ehhh, if the child is healthy or sick, thousands of questions, even questions of ethnic origin that came up in our conversations, things that you had never really asked yourself before.

Nelson’s narrative shows how male participation changes in his story when he talks about the adoption process. His wife Catalina was diagnosed as infertile and went through several IVF cycles. Nelson and Catalina only considered the possibility of adoption after 8 years of trying to have a biological child by means of assisted reproduction. In his story, Nelson describes how hard it was for him to consider adoptive fatherhood:

So then we said, “that’s it, this is the last try (IVF cycle).” The first option I had at the time was to just remain as the two of us, the two of us alone. I didn’t have, I hadn’t thought . . . about adoption, ever . . . I never had that option until Catalina started talking more and more about it. But I always forgot about it, postponed it. . . . I didn’t feel ready to say, hey a child is on its way, I’m going to love him or I’m not going to love him. But little by little one starts to think, hey, if I can love my nephews, my friends’ children then why I am not going to love another child who is going to be mine.

When he finally opened up to the possibility of adoption, he told his wife about his decision and took an active role in the adoption process:

I don’t remember how long it took, I almost don’t remember when I tried to say yes, let’s go ahead and adopt, it’s our way to become parents. It was one day, I remember, a Sunday night. We were in bed and I asked her, I said . . . “OK, let’s look into adopting.” And then she looked at me and said “seriously?” “you’re really serious?” and I said “OK, I’ll call and take care of everything.” And I did everything, I called. . . . I called and made the appointment for the meeting, for everything.

Nelson goes on to tell about the day he met his adoptive son and highlighted that the social worker from the Foundation called him to say that a baby had been assigned to them. Then he told his wife the news. He even tells about being moved to tears in front of his boss:

One day, I was working . . . and suddenly somebody called me and I asked my boss for permission, walked into the office and answered the phone. It was Gloria, the social worker . . . and she said, “Congratulations, the day has arrived” . . . “Excuse me?” “The day has arrived. Your baby is here!” . . . “Seriously!” . . . “Yes!” The first thing I did was to hang up and then what did I do? I called Catalina and said, “They called us!” Then I went to talk with my boss and asked him for the day off. The first thing I did, I can’t remember anything, is to start crying right there, I don’t know. Then I picked up Catalina and we went to the foundation where they took us to meet him.

Nelson takes a leading role in his narrative. It was difficult for him to open up to the possibility of adoption, and he decided to start the process and he is the one who took care of all the work. In treatment, it is women who manage the reproductive process but when the adoption process starts it is men who take the reins. Nelson, just like other adoptive parents in their stories about adoption processes, leaves space for his experience and suffering, since these are just as valid as his wife’s experience and suffering in this new framework. Men are freer here to insert themselves into the center of the narrative and play a leading role. Men feel that they have a legitimate position to speak from in the adoption process. ⁴

A second example of how hard it is for men to legitimate their experience in assisted reproduction processes and how this changes in their narratives about adoption processes is presented as follows. Manuel and Violeta adopted a child after several years of unsuccessful treatment. The interview was held at their home one Sunday afternoon. It was planned as an interview with the couple and so they were both there. Their 4-year-old adoptive son Valentín was also there. The two started off the interview by telling their story as a married couple. Violeta then went into greater detail to explain the reasons for their (feminine) infertility and the treatment. Manuel looked for spaces to join in but his interventions were brief and interrupted by Violeta’s corrections.

The following extract shows how Manuel tries to participate in the narration of their experience with assisted reproduction. He uses the first person plural. But Violeta takes over the conversation, centering it on her body and speaking in first person singular. Manuel tries to join in and explain why they had never considered IVF. Violeta interrupts him and redirects the conversation toward her experience, providing an alternative explanation and portraying herself as the expert.

Valentín starts to constantly interrupt the interview. Violeta decides to go play with him in the room next door. But she does this once she has finished talking about the experience of trying to have a biological child. It seems that she trusts that Manuel will be able to tell about the couple’s experience in the adoption process. Manuel goes on to tell a story rich in detail and with interspersed references to his own emotions when he describes his experience with regard to adopting Valentín. In his story he portrays himself as the protagonist, spending a lot of time describing how he built his loving relationship with his son.

I gradually fell in love with my children as I changed their diapers, bathed them, hugged them. One would wake up and when they look at you and smile at you, a gesture, and I just kept falling in love with them. . . . As time goes by, I would hold Valentin’s baby bottle and he would grab my fingers like this, around the baby bottle and he would look at me like this. And just by looking at me he would communicate with me and say “thank you.”

Men are aware that the focus is no longer on women’s bodies during adoption. Roberto and his wife were never clearly diagnosed as infertile and spent several years in low complexity treatment. They finally adopted a girl. Roberto highlights that adoption, since it is not biological, puts men and women on equal ground, indicating that both have “a very strong degree of commitment with the issue, both as mothers and as fathers, very, very strong. Perhaps the concept of living the process in a, uhh, non-biological way makes you, gives you somewhat different perception.”

Men who have gone through both the adoption and biological fatherhood experience highlight that both processes are very similar for them. In both cases, they wait for their child, meet their child, and learn to love their child once he or she comes into their lives. Guillermo and his wife were diagnosed with male infertility and after several years of treatment conceived their first child through ICSI. They dismissed the possibility of gamete donation for their second child and adopted a girl. Guillermo compares women’s and men’s experience of having a biological child and an adopted child as follows:

Women have a biological experience during pregnancy and fathers do not have biological experiences during conception or while their children mature before they are born. It is therefore obvious to me that the children are there, they both came to me in the same way. I waited 9 months for one and about the same time for the other one too. But there must be a difference (for women) between a child coming out of you and the other child not coming out of you.

Guillermo as other participants who had experienced both expressed that the two processes are comparable for men, but not so for women, who experience the process of pregnancy and therefore have a relationship with their child before he or she is born.

Edgardo had a biological daughter when he was a teenager. His present wife was diagnosed as infertile and at the time of the interview was pregnant following an IVF cycle. He states that men “always adopt”:

She wasn’t in my tummy, I don’t know her and I’m going to meet her when she is born and then I’m going to start loving her. . . . When I first see her she will be a baby just like any other. You see? In this sense I think that as a father, let’s say that one always adopts a newborn baby.

Discussion

In the previous section, it was possible to observe how 16 Chilean men see themselves and describe their participation in two particular nonnormative reproductive contexts. The analysis of the masculine experience in the processes of assisted reproduction and adoption reveals these men’s search for a legitimate position in their reproductive processes. Some of the authors who have analyzed men’s experience during reproduction place emphasis on the continuity and reproduction of hegemonic masculinity patterns among men (McCreight, 2004; Thompson, 2005; Throsby & Gill, 2004), whereas others see that the reproductive context leads to emerging ways of “being a man” (Dolan & Coe, 2011; Inhorn & Wentzell, 2011; Webb & Daniluk, 1999). The comparison of assisted reproduction and adoption narratives allows us to see how Chilean men reproduce and also challenge prevailing masculinity patterns in Chile.

The men interviewed assume that they are in a disadvantageous position compared with women in terms of reproduction. From men’s perspective, women carry a child in their womb and therefore have a relationship with the child before it is born. Men have to build this relationship when the child is born. In addition, suffering associated with pregnancy and childbirth gives women’s experience a legitimacy that men’s experiences lack (Dolan & Coe, 2011; McCreight, 2004). In men’s narratives women are powerful in the field of biological reproduction. Men recognize this “superiority” and this is proved by the fact that men usually are secondary characters in their own stories about medical intervention.

Even when it is difficult for men to legitimate their own experiences (Shapiro, 2009), men’s narratives about assisted reproduction show that they attempt to find a space for themselves in the reproductive process. In the first place, in men’s stories about assisted reproduction treatment the couple plays the leading role (in contrast with women’s narratives where women play a leading role). Men therefore include themselves in this “we” that takes action and makes decisions.

Second, to legitimate their participation, men interviewed highlight their roles as supporters and strong men. These results are consistent with the findings of Throsby and Gill (2004) about masculinity and IVF. Here men see that one of their main responsibilities consists of providing emotional support for their partners. Also, men’s stories usually do not include reference to their own emotions or if they are included, these are emotions such as anger and frustration (emotions consistent with hegemonic masculinities). Interestingly, most women interviewed say that they have to bear all the weight of their treatment, describing their physical and emotional suffering and complaining that their husbands provide little support and are unable to express their feelings. More research is needed to understand this difference between male and female perceptions of male support.

Finally, although men portray themselves as secondary and nonactive characters in their stories about assisted reproduction, they present themselves as characters able to make crucial decisions at essential times. Usually, these decisions involve discontinuing treatment and are made when their wives are overwhelmed with the intention to protect them. In this way, men emphasize their roles as rational men. Throsby and Gill (2004) suggest that in IVF men play the role of an “agent of rational veto” in contrast with the passive role they play throughout treatment. Here men make the decision to protect their women from the physical and emotional costs of treatment. In addition, making the decision to stop trying to have a biological child is a decision that is considered socially harder for women to face.

Despite these efforts to find a place for their experience in assisted reproduction processes, men play a secondary role and do not dare to question the central role of women’s experience. Consequently, men legitimate women as protagonists of the reproductive process (McCreight, 2004; Webb & Daniluk, 1999). In her study about men’s narratives and practices around first-time fatherhood, Miller (2011) explains that men can only imagine and articulate their caring involvement for their future babies as supportive, and so secondary, task-based acts, because their wives are already positioned as having primary responsibility.

Men’s attempts to find a legitimate space in the assisted reproductive process reproduce dominant masculinity patterns expressed by Olavarría (2001a, 2001b). Men portray themselves as protective, rational, and strong in order to find a position in the field of reproduction that will validate them with regard to women’s experience. According to Olavarría (2001a, 2001b), being a father is at the core of building male identity in Chile, since men’s heterosexuality is reaffirmed through procreation. This is to say that the type of fatherhood that reinforces masculinity is biological fatherhood, associated with sexual intercourse, and not adoptive fatherhood. What happens with masculinity in adoption processes?

Goldberg et al. (2009) state that “pregnancy primarily involves the impregnated woman, whereas the adoption process requires relatively equal involvement by both partners” (p. 942). When there is no pregnancy and no biological ties with the child, both members of the couple are in similar situations. Both men and women can do things throughout the process that will increase the likelihood of becoming parents. They both have to wait for their child and the two of them will have to build a relationship with the child once he or she arrives. ⁵

This is evidenced by adoption narratives where, in contrast with stories about treatment, men describe each stage of the process in detail, narrating their specific experiences in first person singular. Throughout their stories, men highlight the decisions they have made and actions they have completed, and even make reference to their own emotions. In narratives about adoption, men occupy a space they will use to tell their personal experiences and here they are the protagonists. They also use dominant masculinity elements described by Olavarría to validate themselves in this space: When telling their stories they describe themselves as rational men who get things done and make decisions.

However, in adoption narratives certain features that move away from this dominant masculinity can also be identified and these could be the sign of a new emerging masculinity (Inhorn & Wentzell, 2011) or of the “new father” identified by Valdés (Valdés, 2009; Valdés & Godoy, 2008). In these stories, men stop placing emphasis on their roles as protectors (of their wives) and leave room for their own emotions (sadness, anguish, insecurity, fear). In addition, men tell how they met their children and how they started loving them in great detail and affectionately. These stories evidence men who consider being a close and affectionate father to be a core attribute of their masculinity.

I would like to point out that this study has some limitations. First, this study is based on the narratives of a relatively small number of middle-class men. Future studies should consider including men from different social classes and education levels in order to compare the experiences of men belonging to different social groups. In addition, it would be valuable to incorporate the experiences of homosexual men. Second, the reproduction process experiences of men who are already fathers are retrospectively analyzed. Future research should consider following men prospectively as they undergo the reproductive process (Miller, 2011). Third, this study focused on nonnormative reproduction cases. It would be interesting to compare and contrast these experiences with how men perceive their participation in normative reproduction processes. Finally, more research about men’s experience in adoption processes is needed. This study is a first step toward casting light on this issue where little research has been done.

Despite these limitations, this study furthers our understanding about how men relate to reproduction. Comparing how men narrate their participation in assisted reproduction and adoption processes helps us understand factors that determine the role men play and want to play in their reproductive processes.