In his model of psychosocial development, Erik H Erikson referred to the concept of generativity as a value that forms part of the adulthood phase of individuals. The concept has been defined as "... the desire to establish and nurture young people". Applied to parenting and in particular fathering, it refers to "... fathering that meets the needs of children by working to create and maintain a developing ethical relationship with them" (Dollahite et al., 1997a: 18). Such a relationship is important insofar as it necessitates the creation and maintenance of three psychosocial strengths, namely hope, fidelity and care - all of which are important for an individual to be healthy and functional (Erikson, 1984; 1997). The dissertation that follows primarily focused on the changing nature of fathering, with particular emphasis on a comparison between heterosexual and gay fathering in South Africa. This comparison served to indicate the manner in which these men conceptualised fathering, and the degree to which they displayed the principles of generative fathering to determine their possible differences and similarities. Evident from some of the key findings were the following. Firstly, in terms of the manner in which the men defined fathering, both groupings used similar concepts to define the position of a father. Secondly, based on the thorough discussion of the basic principles of generative fathering in Chapter Two, it was quite evident that both heterosexual and gay fathers knowingly and unknowingly ascribed to them. These included the components of generative fathering, being interaction, accessibility and paternal responsibility and the various categories of generative fathering, including ethical work, stewardship, development work and relationship work. Based on these similarities, it was of particular interest to the researcher that it was not the sexual orientation of the respondents which impacted on their relationship with their children, but rather independent factors such as the manner in which they were socialised by their fathers, their educational and occupational levels, as well as spousal support. As such, the research underscored the importance of eradicating traditional notions of the father serving only as moral figure, economic provider and gender role model. In addition, it also emphasised the fact that 'gay fathering' should not be regarded as a contradiction in terms, but that 'gay fathering' and the seemingly stereotypical 'gay lifestyle', should be viewed as two distinct and independent entities. / Thesis (M.A. (Sociology))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2009.

In his model of psychosocial development, Erik H Erikson referred to the concept of generativity as a value that forms part of the adulthood phase of individuals. The concept has been defined as "... the desire to establish and nurture young people". Applied to parenting and in particular fathering, it refers to "... fathering that meets the needs of children by working to create and maintain a developing ethical relationship with them" (Dollahite et al., 1997a: 18). Such a relationship is important insofar as it necessitates the creation and maintenance of three psychosocial strengths, namely hope, fidelity and care - all of which are important for an individual to be healthy and functional (Erikson, 1984; 1997). The dissertation that follows primarily focused on the changing nature of fathering, with particular emphasis on a comparison between heterosexual and gay fathering in South Africa. This comparison served to indicate the manner in which these men conceptualised fathering, and the degree to which they displayed the principles of generative fathering to determine their possible differences and similarities. Evident from some of the key findings were the following. Firstly, in terms of the manner in which the men defined fathering, both groupings used similar concepts to define the position of a father. Secondly, based on the thorough discussion of the basic principles of generative fathering in Chapter Two, it was quite evident that both heterosexual and gay fathers knowingly and unknowingly ascribed to them. These included the components of generative fathering, being interaction, accessibility and paternal responsibility and the various categories of generative fathering, including ethical work, stewardship, development work and relationship work. Based on these similarities, it was of particular interest to the researcher that it was not the sexual orientation of the respondents which impacted on their relationship with their children, but rather independent factors such as the manner in which they were socialised by their fathers, their educational and occupational levels, as well as spousal support. As such, the research underscored the importance of eradicating traditional notions of the father serving only as moral figure, economic provider and gender role model. In addition, it also emphasised the fact that 'gay fathering' should not be regarded as a contradiction in terms, but that 'gay fathering' and the seemingly stereotypical 'gay lifestyle', should be viewed as two distinct and independent entities. / Thesis (M.A. (Sociology))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2009.

Over the past decade, a ‘gayby boom’ (Richman, 2002) has occurred in the Israeli male-gay community: hundreds of gay couples became fathers through cross-border commercial surrogacy. This rise was accompanied by political struggles over access to surrogacy for same-sex couples within Israel. This study explores first, the causes of this sudden rise in ‘gay surrogacy’; and second, the social implications, especially pertaining to the alteration of family norms in the 21st century. Drawing on Science and Technology Studies (STS), surrogacy is analysed as an 'assemblage', consisting of the interaction between socially shaped practices and desires, the medical and legal technologies involved, and the overarching state apparatuses. To draw out the complexity of the different components of this assemblage (individual, medical and legal, and state), 31 gay surrogacy fathers were interviewed, along with Israeli surrogacy industry representatives (n=6) and policy makers (n=13). Media coverage of ‘gay surrogacy’ and documentation from relevant court appeals and state committees on reproductive technologies were incorporated into the analysis to provide a contextual framework. Three themes were identified. First, surrogacy provides Israeli gay men a unique combination of novelty and sameness: surrogacy offers ‘biological’ fatherhood, similar to that enjoyed by heterosexual couples, but also facilitates the creation of a new family model, the ‘two-father-family’. The contradiction between the application of technology and the idea of ‘procreation’ disappeared through a discursive normalising and neutralising mechanism, in which surrogacy serves as a stand-in for ‘natural procreation’. Through this process, assisted reproduction facilitated the normalisation of the gay family. Second, despite the fact that surrogacy markets operate globally, the State emerged as a significant force in shaping the specific mechanisms of the surrogacy process, as well as the procreative desires of the Israeli surrogacy fathers – who were geared towards both genetic procreation and reproducing the nation. Gay fatherhood through surrogacy was found to be part of the new ‘gaystream’ (Duggan, 2002), expressing desires towards a new (homo)normativity and participating in homonationalist (Puar, 2007) struggles. Finally, cross-border surrogacy operates in a global market, based upon the commerce of gametes and reproductive services involving third-party women, often from impoverished parts of the world (Vora, 2015). This creates a moral dilemma for commissioning fathers, regarding the commodification of women and children in the market for reproductive services, and the related harm and exploitation within surrogacy markets. Surrogacy fathers negotiated these moral conflicts by forming ideas and ideals of reciprocity, intimacy and shared commitment towards and with the surrogate. However, the realisation of these values is heavily dependent upon the regulatory regimes in the surrogacy state and the outcomes of the medical and physical procedures – that is, the birth of a live healthy child. In conclusion, surrogacy offers a site for making families and remaking ‘the family’. It is based on already existing familial norms, but at the same time partially unsettles these; it is shaped by state regulations and national desires; and it is deeply implicated in unequal global markets, while explicitly harbouring ideals of intimacy and reciprocity. As surrogacy becomes the normative familial form for gay men in Israel, the need arises for collective critical reflexion on the impacts of surrogacy practices on global ‘others’, and on minorities within the Israeli queer community.