Methodology
We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews (N=67), with both experts (physicians, lawyers, sociologists, philosophers and ethicists) and lay users of SEF from Israel and Germany. Additionally, a discourse analysis of (a) relevant publications (academic, regulative and medical); and (b) relevant internet forums has been undertaken. Data analysis followed the grounded theory method.
Results
1. SEF is highly controversially discussed among experts in both countries. Yet, I identified cross-cultural differences within the two expert communities. In Germany, the controversy circles around the (de)legitimation of late-motherhood and concerns were raised regarding postponing reproduction. In Israel, the controversy revolves around the legitimation of SEF as potentially giving women new opportunities and is negotiated as reproductive planning. Relevant cultural scripts to explain the differences include pro-natalism in Israel and social expectations regarding ‘good’ motherhood in Germany.
2. The motivations of SEF users can be classified along three different types reflecting the socio-cultural construction of temporality. German SEF users saw the decision to become a mother as less evident and more negotiable (highlighting labor market demands, ideas of “readiness” and perceived social expectations for devoted motherhood). One rather small group (only German SEF users) viewed SEF as an opportunity to postpone motherhood or ‘gain more time’ for making reproductive decisions. A second group of interviewees (both Israeli and German users) identified the lack of stable relationship as a main motivation for using SEF, which enables them to continue “waiting” for the right partner. This group demonstrates how the phenomenology of singlehood produces a certain temporal identity that is shared by SEF users regardless of their cultural background. The third group (comprised only of Israeli religious users), used the procedure in the hope to have a multiple number of children. This last type highlights the need for intra-cultural understandings (such as religiosity as a cofactor to gender).
3. The role of life-course ideals and related perceptions regarding ‘appropriate‘ timetables become important in shaping the debate around late motherhood and the postponing of reproduction (Rimon-Zarfaty & Schweda 2019). For theory building, the analysis of SEF users’ motivations uncovers different temporality formations and time logics embedded in gender and reproduction meanings. Those include the highly gendered notion of “extended present” (Leccardi 2005), “waiting” and related normative interpretations (Lahad 2012;2017), and transparent forms of “reproductive futurism” (Edelman 2004). Finally, several experts raised concerns regarding possible future motivations for using SEF as a mean for solving gendered time conflicts in the context of the labor market. Such concerns frame SEF as potential medicalization and (non-transparent) “clinical labor” (Cooper and Waldby 2014), govern by male centered model of ideal participation in the labor force.
Exploitation and dissemination
Academic Dissemination included a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, six presentations in international conferences, invited talks in academic forums and the organization of two events (international workshop and a stakeholders’ conference). Future dissemination will include two papers in progress as well as the co-editing of a planned ‘special issue’.
Public Dissemination included lecture to the general public, development of relevant teaching materials, participation as an interviewed expert in a German newspaper article and the establishment of a project’s webpage and Facebook page.
