Gay men as parents: Analysing resistant talk in South African mainstream media accounts of queer families

Introduction

The media shape public ideologies in significant ways and have long been one of few sources of information about sexual minorities available to the general public, functioning “hegemonically to reveal and construct dynamic power relationships and their sexual politics” (Landau, 2009, p. 84). The media in general, and news media in particular, have thus been identified as forming an important part of strategies for transforming oppressive constructions of sexuality and gender (Landau, 2009). It has been argued that public acceptance can be promoted through increased positive portrayals of queer families (Lubbe, 2008). Bernstein and Reiman (2001) state that “[w]hen queers decide to come out in the context of their relationships, how they represent themselves [and, we would add, how they are represented] has implications for political and cultural change” (p. 8). However, as Gamson (2001) points out, “the desire to be recognised, affirmed, validated, and to lay the cultural groundwork for political change … . has tended to inhibit careful analysis of the dynamics of becoming visible” (p. 70). This observation points to the need to interrogate the ways in which queer families are portrayed in the media, not only in relation to invalidating or oppositional arguments, but also those that appear to work in favour of queer families. Accordingly, our aim in this paper is to explore the relationship between visibility, gender transgression, and the politics of queer families. We do this by investigating how gay men and their families are represented in South African mainstream media.

Queer politics play out within a broader setting in which there is still strong conservative opposition towards queer families – seen as a threat to the hetero-patriarchal order, and to society itself (Bernstein & Reiman, 2001). At the same time, there have been broad cultural shifts towards inclusivity and acceptance of diversity, often expressed in (neo)liberal terms (Brickell, 2001). These liberal arguments have been adopted within political movements that attempt to combat discrimination on the basis of homosexuality “as a difference as benign as left-handedness, which would have no meaning in the absence of discrimination” (Bernstein & Reiman, 2001, p. 12).

In the South African context constitutional protection on the grounds of sexual orientation – listed along with signifiers such as race, class, and gender – exemplifies a political strategy of assimilation (Hames, 2008). In contrast, other political movements, notably those driven by feminist and queer theories, seek to transform the current hetero-gendered order and espouse a politics of transgression (Bernstein & Reiman, 2001). Scholars who support transgressive politics do so on the basis that assimilation produces new forms of invisibility and different opportunities for the exclusion of those who threaten the norm (Walters, 2001). As Walters (2001) argues, “[h]istory has shown us—with horrifying detail—the ways in which forms of bigotry sustain themselves and even grow in the face of assimilation” (p. 340). Indeed, “the accomplishments of previous social movements have created a society in which discrimination, sexism, and even homophobia is not as overt as it once was. Covert forms of discrimination are subtle and seemingly innocuous” (Sowards & Renegar, 2006, p. 60).

In this paper, we take up a feminist discursive psychology standpoint to explore the transformative potential of counter narratives, or “resistant talk” as we term it, in news media reportage. We analyse media constructions that implicitly or overtly challenge negative constructions of gay fatherhood, thus potentially working to support queer families. Our analysis adds to a small, emerging body of knowledge about the relationship between media discourses and queer politics. This scholarship is largely located in the global North, often concentrating on United States media products (e.g. television talk shows) and focused either on queer families more generally or on lesbian mothers (e.g. Alwood, 1996; Clarke & Kitzinger, 2004, 2005; Gamson, 1998, 2001; Landau, 2009; Riggs, 2007). There is therefore a paucity of work in Southern contexts focused on constructions of gay fathers and their children.

The lack of specific focus on gay men as parents corresponds with the broader marginalisation and invisibility of gay fatherhood, as well as parents who identify as bisexual, transgender, or intersex, in both media and scholarship (Mallon, 2004; Morison & Reddy, 2013). This can be understood as part of a general tendency to overlook men in relation to the domestic sphere. The exception is news reporting on fathers who are regarded as problematic (and thus newsworthy), resulting in the predominance of images of violent or “deadbeat” fathers (Prinsloo, 2006). This is changing in relation to heterosexual men, as “new”, hands-on fatherhood becomes a more visible and socially desirable identity (Morison & Macleod, 2015). Queer fathers, however, remain on the margins of these discussions.

In attempting to address these research gaps, we examine the ways that queer fathers and their families are constructed in contemporary South African mainstream print news media discourse through a feminist discursive psychology lens. We draw our data from a research project about gay men and fatherhood that included a media analysis. We begin by contextualising the issue through outlining the media landscape in which resistant talk typically occurs. We then provide some information regarding our research design, explicate our analytical approach, and present our results.

Queer families in the media: A polarised debate

Media discourses related to queer parenthood are framed against a profoundly hetero-patriarchal backdrop so that heterosexuality and male dominance are central to definitions of “normal”, “healthy” families (Morison & Reddy, 2013). Using the heterosexual, male-headed nuclear family as the standard, lesbians’ and gay men’s families are construed as “alternative” at best and, at worst, as “deviant”. The durability of these hetero-patriarchal norms means that, despite a broad shift in public rhetoric towards the general expression of liberal tolerance of sexual and gender nonconformity, there remains significant opposition to homosexuality (Burridge, 2004). Queer families, therefore, find themselves in a paradoxical situation as the “age of visibility produces both realities: the hopeful moment of rights and inclusion and the fearful moments of victimisation and reaction” (Walters, 2001, p. 340).

Growing support of queer rights frequently coexists with conservative discourses against same-sex unions (Jowett, 2014) or queer family rights (Clarke, 2000). Similar to such international contexts, civil and reproductive rights are legally protected in South Africa. Though data on the number of queer South African families are not readily available, such civil unions are registered with growing frequency ¹ (StatsSA, 2011, 2013). As in other English-speaking liberal democracies, such as the USA or UK, the uptake of reproductive family rights, and experiences of queer persons more generally, is deeply raced and classed. In terms of social exclusion, it has been noted that White and middle class queers generally experience “mundane” heterosexism, while those who are Black and working class also face more severe social sanction (Riggs, 2007). In South Africa, such opposition frequently takes more extreme forms such as violence or rape, which may be less common (though not absent) in more affluent, global North countries. Nevertheless, it could be argued that, as in other countries where liberal tolerance is officially espoused, expressions of heterosexism become less blatant and instead are indirect or veiled within tolerant rhetoric, in order to accommodate political changes. Such veiled heterosexism occurs in response to situations where being seen as homophobic would be undesirable, such as in public debates or the news media (Brickell, 2001; Burridge, 2004).

Accordingly, we argue that some counter-arguments, which ostensibly support queer family rights, may still normalise the hetero-patriarchal nuclear family form and “Other” queer families, particularly those underpinned by the discourse of liberal tolerance. We shall show how the political efficacy of ostensibly resistant constructions is undermined by and reinforces particular heteronormative, gendered assumptions. As a result, resonating with the findings of other studies, the hetero-gendered norm itself is rarely questioned in media discourses, and heterosexism (or homophobia) is not usually interrogated in any meaningful way (Clarke & Kitzinger, 2004; Morison & Reddy, 2013).

Focusing on media discussions, gay and lesbian people’s right or fitness to parent is usually framed as controversial and disputable. The topic is often presented as a polarised issue. Conservative arguments seek to uphold the heterosexual nuclear family as the norm while liberal counter-arguments support family diversity (Clarke, 2001). This framing of the topic as a debate is reinforced by the journalistic style of balancing reportage by presenting “both sides” of the argument, in an apparent attempt at objectivity (Clarke & Kitzinger, 2004; Landau, 2009). This “argument then counterargument structure” places advocates of queer families in a defensive position (Landau, 2009, p. 88). Moreover, Landau (2009) contends, it lends false credibility to “both sides” of the topic under investigation, inadvertently legitimating the controversial – even threatening – nature of the subject and reaffirming the need for public scrutiny.

Several investigations of various media forms – such as daytime talk television (Clarke & Kitzinger, 2004, 2005; Gamson, 2001), print news (Landau, 2009; Morison & Reddy, 2013), and radio interviews (Riggs, 2007) – have identified a number of common arguments used by both opponents and proponents of queer parents and families. As can be expected, arguments in favour of queer parenting are often deployed in response to delegitimising or hostile arguments. We discuss these arguments below.

Methods

The data corpus

To locate news articles for analysis, we conducted a systematic search of online South African media archives and databases (SA Media Archive, Google news, IOL, and the Media24 Archive). We selected all relevant print or online articles published in mainstream newspapers and magazines. Relevance was determined according to whether the piece focused substantially on queer parents and families. Articles about queer issues in general or with no substantive focus on childbearing, family formation, or parenting were excluded. Our search was conducted using keywords in English and Afrikaans, which are dominant languages of the mainstream South African press.

The overall dataset comprises 152 relevant articles spanning almost 30 years (1985–July 2014), with a steady increase in number over time. We focused our analysis on a subset of 45 articles, as explained below. Most articles were in English (90), but a substantial number were in Afrikaans (62). ² The major topics covered, and the number of articles reporting on these topics, are summarised in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Summary of major topics addressed in overall dataset.

Main topic	Frequency	Per cent (%)
Struggle stories (custody struggles; legal battles; rights)	65	42.8
General queer marriage and family	28	18.4
Parenting, child development, “effects” on children	19	12.5
Testimonies/experiences of parents and/or their children	17	11.2
Assisted reproductive technologies (e.g. surrogacy; IVF)	12	7.9
Adoption or foster care	7	4.6
Bad parenting (child abuse/harm/murder)	4	2.6
Total	152	100.0

IVF: In vitro fertilisation

This preliminary descriptive analysis indicates that the large majority of articles foregrounded queer parents’ struggles to attain legal recognition of familial rights and custody of children. Indeed, these are newsworthy topics and the bulk of the reportage appeared in newspapers (121), with far fewer appearing in magazines (8) or as letters to the editor or opinion pieces (23). This means that the voices of the actual parents and children living in queer families were represented far less than those of courts, various experts (like psychologists and social workers), and the general public. This is especially true of queer men and their families, evident in the much smaller number of articles that focussed specifically on these persons: While almost half of the articles (45.5%) were about lesbian mothers and their children, only 32 (21.1%) concerned gay men and their families. ³ A breakdown of the focus of the articles in the dataset appears in Table 2.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Summary of main focus of articles in overall dataset.

Article focus	Frequency	Per cent (%)
Lesbians and/or their children	69	45.4
Gay men and/or their children	32	21.1
Legal reform	8	5.3
Children (general)	5	3.3
Bisexual, transgender, intersex persons	2	1.3
Total	152	100.0

We focussed our analysis on articles about gay men and their families (32) as well as those reporting on queer families more broadly (13). It is within these 45 articles that we identified instances of resistant talk. The descriptive analysis of the dataset also included an assessment of the framing of articles: whether the overall tone was hostile or positive/supportive of queer families; or generally attempting to be balanced or neutral. A minority of articles (13.2%) were negative, with most stories either written in an overtly positive (46.1%) or a balanced or neutral style (40.7%).

Resistant talk in South African news media

We constructed four main themes evident in arguments supportive of queer parenting, each reflecting different rhetorical strategies and with different implications for countering hetero-gendered norms, as indicated earlier. Below we explore the major rhetorical strategies evident in each theme, showing how they respond to arguments against queer parenting. The first two themes that we discuss are de-gendering parenthood and normalising gay and lesbian parenting. These were more common and correspond with themes identified in previous research, reviewed earlier (e.g. Clarke, 2002; Clarke & Kitzinger, 2004). We discuss these in order to show how they manifest within this particular context. The remaining two themes – valorising queer parenting and challenging the normative gold standard of parenting – were less common in our dataset and only briefly alluded to in the existing literature. We use data extracts in the analysis for illustrative purposes, with bold font to highlight aspects of the data that we wish to emphasise. After presenting the themes, we evaluate the political implications of each of the rhetorical strategies discussed.

Concluding discussion

We now consider the political implications of the rhetorical strategies present in the themes discussed and assess their potential to challenge restrictive hetero-gendered norms. Previous research proposes that queer families need to be constructed and represented on “their own terms” and that politically effective strategies should not be based on “straight values” (Gamson, 2001; Morison & Reddy, 2013; Riggs, 2007). In our research, we were thus attuned to the possibility of rhetorical strategies that appear to operate on their “own terms”, rather than reinforcing the heteronorm.

The first two themes (de-gendering parenthood; normalising gay and lesbian parents) are clearly limited in this regard. This is not to say that they do not challenge gender norms and heteronormativity at all; de-gendering talk “challenges seemingly consistent categories, such as ‘father’, ‘mother’, ‘man’, ‘woman’, ‘heterosexual’, and ‘homosexual’” (Folgerø, 2008, p. 146). Such talk potentially subverts the gendered logic of “doing family”, allowing both men and women to perform non-traditional roles. This subversion paves the way for more equitable parenting practices within heterosexual relationships (Schacher et al., 2005). It may also allow gay men to challenge beliefs about men as inferior parents. Likewise, normalising rhetoric contains some subversive potential in that it challenges assumptions about deviant difference and homosexuality as a master identity in which sexuality overrides one’s parental status (Clarke & Kitzinger, 2004).

Nevertheless, neither rhetorical strategy supports transgressive politics, because each remains structured around “the oppressor’s discourse” (Smith, 1994, p. 235) and so does not greatly challenge heteronormativity. Instead, each to some extent supports established understandings of “The Family”. This is evident in arguments which retain assumptions regarding the superiority of the two-parent norm in ways that largely map queer families onto the heterosexual template and in so doing maintain the heterosexual nuclear family as the ideal. Such arguments draw on a familiar “conjugalisation of reproduction” discourse, that contains procreation within heterosexual marriage, in which the male–female romantic dyad becomes the parenting dyad (Morison & Macleod, 2015), with families created outside of such a union being considered illegitimate, unnatural, and tenuous (Folgerø, 2008; Macleod, 2001). In our data this configuration is extended to accommodate two same-sex parents as forming a parenting dyad. However, while challenging the gendered character of parental roles, in which mothers are seen as natural parents, the ideal of a conjugalised, two-parent structure of parenting often remained unquestioned. Likewise, arguing that queer families compare favourably to the heterosexual ideal means that this ideal remains the standard against which all families are measured (Hicks, 2005). This suggests that the preferred context in which children should be raised remains the nuclear family. Not only does this obscure classed and raced values that often underpin the nuclear family ideal, but it also circumvents challenges to the heteronorm.

The talk in both of these themes (de-gendering and normalising) thus fits queer parents into existing understandings of the family and parenthood and only partially challenges the heteronormative discourses in which ideas about biological kinship, gender complementarity, and family life centred around a co-resident couple are interwoven and support the heterosexual ideal (Folgerø, 2008). Furthermore, rhetorical strategies that make claims to “sameness” or “normality” obscure the radical differences that shape queer parents’ lives, deny possible benefits of lesbian and gay parenting, and divert attention from the ways in which institutionalised discrimination oppresses lesbian and gay parents (Riggs, 2007). These arguments are articulated in the voice of liberal tolerance, which encourages the acceptance of “Others” into mainstream culture (Morison & Reddy, 2013). Since change is allowed to occur only within the status quo, there is limited scope for long-term social change that includes those who do not measure up so well to the heteronormative gold standard. Transformation is thus limited to the (conditional) tolerance of “alternative” families in hetero-patriarchal society.

In contrast, the final two themes (valorising queer parenting; challenging the heteronormative gold standard) seem to hold greater promise for transformational politics. These encompass ways of speaking that emphasise the benefits of queer parenting for children in terms other than how well they match up to this gold standard and interrogate the heterosexual nuclear family as ideal. These instances of talk were, however, infrequent and it is worth noting that in the mainstream media analysed, these resistant voices are largely those of gender activists, using an academic framing as expert voices, and presented in what can be described as more “liberal” press. While this is admittedly a somewhat marginal position, in relation to the mainstream press, it holds the potential to challenge the status quo and offer the promise of long-term social transformation.

A closer look at the central concerns of each of these counter-arguments provides some indication of how these ways of speaking can be moved from the peripheries of the debate. What is useful about all four of these arguments is that each to some extent steers the discussion away from a preoccupation with family form and towards family functioning. The first two (de-gendering and marginalising) are hamstrung by their articulation within an oppressive discourse, as we have noted. However, the second two (valorising and challenging) refuse the subordinate positioning of queer families as a starting point for dissent. Eschewing the more defensive positioning of the first two rhetorical strategies, these more radical counter-arguments create a new benchmark, based on a different set of “family values” centred upon ideals of tolerance and equality; these values, as intimated in the theme, already hold sway within liberal democracies. By placing the argument in these terms, it is possible to highlight the extent to which family functioning may help achieve these ideals. Though child welfare is upheld as a concern – which is guaranteed primarily by what families do rather than what they look like – this is balanced with a broader view of other family members’ needs and rights, and these are aligned with children’s needs or best interests.

This alternative set of values admittedly may not appeal to those committed to conservative family values. Yet, when they are linked to broader social issues that go beyond family politics, the argument may become more persuasive. In particular, the final theme of challenging heteronormativity as ideal offers a strategy for allowing wider engagement with oppositional talk: by connecting the interests of queer families to more commonly shared concerns of inequality and violence in traditional family structures, such resistant talk might find greater traction in public discussions.

In light of our broader aim of addressing the relationship between the ways that queer families are rendered visible, gender transgression, and queer politics, we have shown how particular South African media constructions feed into assimilationist and/or transgressive political strategies. We have shown how long-term socio-cultural transformation is not undermined only by obviously invalidating or oppositional arguments, but also how this may occur more insidiously within arguments that at face value appear to support queer families. This supports previous findings, related to general queer politics, of the limitations and drawbacks of liberal discourses. We have also identified alternative ways of speaking that appear to offer more possibilities for long-term socio-cultural transformation. These strategies propose a fundamental shift in the current hetero-gendered order and hold potential benefits not only for sexual minorities but also for broader gender power relations. Nevertheless, as we have indicated, such arguments remain at the periphery of public discussions of queer families and, in their present form, draw on academic discourses that may be alienating in the broader social milieu. We have provided some initial thoughts regarding how such strategies could be taken up in advocacy work and filtered into mainstream discussions, but further research would assist with this aim.