The medicalisation of infertility. Men’s discourse between marginalisation and reproduction

Journal title SALUTE E SOCIETÀ
Author/s Lia Lombardi
Publishing Year 2018 Issue 2018/2
Language English Pages 16 P. 56-71 File size 93 KB
DOI 10.3280/SES2018-002005
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Starting from the assumption that the discourses and practices related to infertility are part of the gender structure inherent in the social construction of health, this paper focuses on assisted reproductive technology (ART), and analyses, on the one hand, expert discourse and medical practices, and, on the other, patients’ experience, thus portraying infertility as a socially and culturally constructed experience. As a consequence, gender becomes a determining factor in the construction of reproductive and sexual pathology: while the male gender is mainly associated with sexuality, the female gender continues to be associated with reproduction. The emphasis on the medical and technological treatment of women’s bodies reinforces and reproduces this stereotype, as shown in patients’ narratives and in institutional discourse. The article draws on existing national and international literature and on secondary data from the Italian Assisted Reproductive Technology Register (IARTR), the National Statistics Institute and EUROSTAT. Men’s narratives come from different qualitative studies carried out with patients in two Italian infertility clinics and gathered on the websites of patients' associations.

Keywords: infertility; medicalisation; masculinity; gender; reproductive technology; father-hood

  1. Barnes L.W. (2014). Conceiving Masculinity: Male Infertility, Medicine, and Identity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  2. Becker G. (2000). The elusive embryo. How women and men approach New reproductive technologies. Berkeley: University California Press.
  3. Birembaum-Carmeli D., Inhorn M.C. (2009). Masculinity and Marginality: Palestinian Men’s Struggles with Infertility in Israel and Lebanon. Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies, 5(2): 23-52.
  4. Braidotti R. (1996). Madri, mostri, macchine. Roma: Manifesto libri ed.
  5. Burton M. (2014). Negotiating Masculinity: How Infertility Impacts Hegemonic Masculinity. Laurier Undergraduate Journal of the Arts, 1: 49-57.
  6. Chavkin W. (2008). Biology and Destiny: Women, Work, Birthrates, and Assisted Reproductive Technologies. In: Elliott C.M., ed., Global Empowerment of Women. Responses to Globalization and Politicized Religions. New York: Routledge, pp. 45-56.
  7. Clarke L.H. (2006). The Continuity and Discontinuity of the Embodied Self in In-fertility. CRS/CSA, 43(1): 95-113.
  8. Corea G. (1985). The Mother Machine: Reproductive Technologies from Artificial Insemination to Artificial Wombs. New York: Harper & Row.
  9. Crosnoe L.E., Kim E.D. (2013). Impact of age on male fertility. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 25(3): 181-185.
  10. Culley L., Hudson N., Lohan M. (2013). Where are all the men? The marginalization of men in social scientific research on infertility. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 27(3): 225-235.
  11. Davis Floyd R. (1997). Chilbirth and authoritative knowledge. Berkeley: The Re-gents of the University of California Press.
  12. De Parseval G.D. (1988). Des enfants prothèse? In: Sortir la maternité du laboratoire. Atelier Cap Saint Ignace/QUE: Graphiques Marc Veilleux Inc, pp. 130-146.
  13. Farquhar D. (1996). The other machine. Discourse and reproductive technologies. New York: Routledge.
  14. Ferrero Camoletto R., Bertone C., eds. (2016). Le fragilità del sesso forte. Come medicalizzare la maschilità. Milano: Mimesis.
  15. Fisch H., Braun S. (2008). The Male Biological Clock: The Startling News About Aging, Sexuality, and Fertility in Men. New York: Free Press, Simon and Shuster Inc.
  16. Franklin S. (2015). Reconstituting reproductivity: a tale of IVF into two halves, Paper at the International Conference «(In)FERTILE CITIZENS. Antrhopological and legal challenges of Assisted Reproduction Technologies», Aegean University, Lesvos, 28-30 May 2015.
  17. Gannon K., Glover L., Abel P. (2004). Masculinity, infertility, stigma and media reports. Social Science and Medicine, 59(6): 1169-1175.
  18. Haraway D. (1995). Manifesto Cyborg. Donne, tecnologie e biopolitiche del corpo. Milano: Feltrinelli.
  19. Hassan M.A., Killick S.R. (2003). Effect of male age on fertility: evidence for the decline in male fertility with increasing age. Fertility and Sterility, 79(suppl. 3): 1520-1527.
  20. Hinton L., Miller T. (2013). Mapping Men’s Anticipations and Experiences in the Reproductive Realm: (In)Fertility Journeys. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 27(3): 244-252.
  21. IARTR (2017). Executive Summary for 2015. Monitoring the Activity and Out-comes of Italian ART Centers in 2015. Rome: Istituto Superiore di Sanità. http://www.iss.it/rpma
  22. Inhorn M.C. (2007). Masculinity, reproduction, and male infertility surgery in the Middle East. Journal of Middle East women’s studies, 3(3): 1-20. DOI: 10.1215/15525864-2007-400
  23. Inhorn M.C., ed. (2012). The New Arab Man: Emergent Masculinities, Technologies, and Islam in the Middle East. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  24. ISTAT (2016). Rapporto annuale 2015. Roma.
  25. Jordan B. (1985). Sistemi natali ed etno-ostetricia: frammenti di una ricerca transculturale. In: AA. VV., Le culture del parto. Milano: Feltrinelli.
  26. Kimmel M. (2012). Men and Women’s Studies: Promise, Pitfalls, and Possibilities. AG About Gender. International Journal of Gender Studies, 1(1): 1-14.
  27. Lombardi L. (2009). La medicalizzazione della riproduzione umana: il corpo e il genere. Salute e Società, 8(2): 185-201. DOI: 10.3280/SES2009-00200
  28. Lombardi L. (2013). Le sfide sociali della procreazione assistita: come mutano le relazioni di genere? In: Lombardi L., De Zordo S., eds., La procreazione medicalmente assistita e le sue sfide. Generi, Tecnologie e Disuguaglianze. Milano: FrancoAngeli, pp. 31-51.
  29. Lombardi L. (2015). Reproductive technologies and social infertility in Italy: gender policy and inequality. In: Kantsa V., Zanini G. and Papadopoulou L., eds., (In)Fertile Citizens. Anthropological and Legal Challenges of Assisted Reproduction Technologies. Mytilene: (In)FERCIT Lab of Family and Kinship Studies Department of Social Anthropology and History, University of the Aegean, pp. 117-130.
  30. Lombardi L. (2016a). Reproductive technology in Italy between gender policy and inequality. Can we speak of “social infertility”?. AG About Gender. International Journal of Gender Studies, 5(9): 1-20.
  31. Lombardi L. (2016b). Sessualità (maschile) e medicalizzazione della riproduzione: un processo di rimozione? In: Ferrero Camoletto R., Bertone C., eds., Le fragilità del sesso forte. Come medicalizzare la maschilità. Milano: Mimesis, pp. 157-172.
  32. Lombardi L. (2017) Percorsi maschili di preparazione al parto: dai corsi di accompagnamento alla nascita alla sala parto. In: Ruspini E., Inghilleri M., Pecorelli V., eds., Diventare padri nel terzo millennio. Milano: FrancoAngeli, pp. 69-96.
  33. Lombardi L., Mambrini C. (2014). La medicalizzazione della riproduzione umana. La sterilità inspiegata e il percorso delle donne nella procreazione medicalmente assistita. In: Cipolla C., ed., Sociologia e salute di genere. Milano: FrancoAngeli, pp. 186-213.
  34. Maturo A. (2013). Il mercato dei donatori. Peculiarità della procreazione medicalmente assistita negli Stati Uniti. In: Lombardi L., De Zordo S., eds., La pro-creazione medicalmente assistita e le sue sfide. Generi, Tecnologie e Disugua-glianze. Milano: FrancoAngeli, pp. 178-188.
  35. Oakley A. (1984). The Captured Womb. London: Blackwell.
  36. Parolari L., Costantini W. (2013). Epidemiologia dell’infertilità/sterilità nel mondo e PMA: benefici e rischi delle tecnologie riproduttive. In: Lombardi L., De Zordo S., eds., La procreazione medicalmente assistita e le sue sfide. Generi, Tecnologie e Disuguaglianze. Milano: FrancoAngeli, pp. 129-143.
  37. Pescetto G., De Cecco L., Pecorari D., Ragni N. (2009). Ginecologia e Ostetricia. Vol. 1. Roma: Società Editrice Universo.
  38. RNPMA (2017). Relazione del ministro della salute al parlamento sullo stato di attuazione della legge contenente norme in materia di procreazione medicalmente assistita. Roma. Retrieved from: www.iss.it/rpma/
  39. Rolland M., Le Moal J., Wagner V., Royère D., De Mouzon J. (2013). Decline in semen concentration and morphology in a sample of 26 609 men close to general population between 1989 and 2005 in France. Human Reproduction, 28(2): 462-470.
  40. Stanworth M., ed. (1987). Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood, and Medicine. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  41. Ventimiglia C. (1994). La domanda di procreazione assistita e i diversi sistemi di significato. In: Pizzini F., Lombardi L., eds., Madre provetta. Costi, benefici e limiti della procreazione artificiale. Milano: FrancoAngeli, pp. 58-70.
  42. Waggoner M.R. Stults C.D., eds. (2010). Gender and Medicalization. Sociologists for Women. Society (SWS), Fact Sheet, 2010.

Lia Lombardi, The medicalisation of infertility. Men’s discourse between marginalisation and reproduction in "SALUTE E SOCIETÀ" 2/2018, pp 56-71, DOI: 10.3280/SES2018-002005