Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. i Womanhood without motherhood: A critical discursive analysis of how older, childfree women navigate stigma through talk. A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Psychology at Massey University of New Zealand By Jacqueline Ann Wootton Student number: Supervisor: Tracy Morison March, 2024 ii Abstract Voluntary childlessness is relatively common in Westernised contexts but remains stigmatised, especially for women, owing to dominant gendered discourses shaping reproductive norms. In Aotearoa, New Zealand research on voluntary childlessness is scarce, with only several published studies. Globally, research tends to reinforce dominant constructions of voluntary childlessness as abnormal and deviant by focusing on explaining voluntary childlessness (who makes the decision not to parent and why) and the presumed negative consequences, mostly among women of ‘childbearing age’. Research that does consider older women often focuses on potential negative outcomes in later life, echoing common assumptions that childfree women will be sad, lonely, and regretful as they age. Very little research investigates older, voluntarily childless women’s experiences from their own perspectives, and there is no local research to date. Therefore, my research focuses on older, voluntarily childless women living in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Using a feminist poststructuralist lens, under the broad umbrella of reproductive justice, I explore how older women navigate dominant gendered discourses, and how they use discourses to resist stigma associated with their decision not to have children and construct a positive identity. I analysed the interview data generated in interviews with 14 women between the ages of 50 and 71 who identify as childfree from across Aotearoa, New Zealand using critical discursive psychology, applying the principles of reproductive justice and feminist poststructuralism to make sense of my participants’ talk, and what they achieved using the discursive strategies. Four main themes were identified in my analysis, with the first two taking a non-confrontational approach and the final two taking a more critical approach to resisting mandated motherhood, namely: 1. Child-freedom as an equally valid alternative to motherhood, 2. “It’s no big deal”: Minimising and normalising being childfree, 3. Regret-free: Resisting a deficit identity, and 4. “Motherhood is optional, obviously”: Resisting the ‘motherhood mandate’ through liberatory discourses. My research findings show that these women often drew on dominant discourses of essentialism and diversity to construct motherhood and non-motherhood as equally valid options for women. However, they also adopted progressive discourses to problematise motherhood as women’s only source of happiness. While these discursive strategies sometimes contradict each other, the iii overarching sentiment is that women should be able to occupy the subject position of mother or non-mother without stigma. Accordingly, I argue that by resisting gender essentialist and pronatalist discourse, these women can construct positive, childfree identities and multiple possible subjectivities that constitute womanhood. iv Acknowledgements To my supervisor, Tracy Morison: Thank you for so kindly sharing your knowledge of and passion for the subject of voluntary childlessness with me. Your patience and care throughout this process has kept me sane and eased my anxiety. I cannot thank you enough for the guidance you provided over the past two years. To my husband, Austin: I could not have written some of these chapters without incessantly talking through feminist research methodologies with you. Thank you for cheering me on, believing in me, and listening to me go on about this topic for two years! To my mum, Jane and sister, Deb: Thank you for your encouragement and always being in my corner. You have expressed so much enthusiasm to read and listen to my research, and made me feel like I had support at all times. To my late dad, David: Thank you for instilling in me a curious mind and a love for the human experience. I have often thought of you and our conversations about life throughout this research. To my father-in-law, David: Thank you for housing us while I worked part-time and taking a lot of financial pressure off. It made all the difference in allowing me to have the space to put every effort into this thesis. To my extended family on both sides: Thank you for your enthusiasm, kind words, and wanting to hear about and read my research. It truly warms my heart. Most importantly, to my participants: I cannot thank you enough for being so open about your lives and your views. I feel that each of us had a deep connection, amazing conversations, and many similarities, which made this process much more fun. I constantly laughed and nodded profusely while transcribing our interviews! Your openness and honesty, and willingness to help out a postgrad student, made it possible for me to complete this research. Thank you! Approval for this study was obtained by the Massey University Ethics Committee. v Glossary Term Definition Māori The Indigenous people of New Zealand. Pākehā New Zealand European. Aotearoa The name for New Zealand in the Māori language. Wahine/wāhine Māori woman/women. Te Tiriti o Waitangi The Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement made between Māori and Europeans in 1840. Tangata Whenua A Māori language term describing Māori people as the Indigenous people of the land of Aotearoa New Zealand. Iwi Tribe/s. Koha A Māori custom of offering a gift, contribution, or donation. Kaupapa Māori An Indigenous approach to research and knowledge, centring Māori cultural knowledge and experiences (Rua et al., 2023). vi Contents ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................................. II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................................... IV GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................................................................. V CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................................ VI CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 8 1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 1.2. A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................ 9 1.3. RESEARCH ON VOLUNTARY CHILDLESSNESS .................................................................................................................... 9 1.3.1. Who would choose not to have children, and why? ................................................................................. 11 1.3.2. The role of gender .................................................................................................................................... 13 1.3.3. The assump on of nega ve consequences .............................................................................................. 16 1.3.4. Childfree older women ............................................................................................................................. 18 1.3.5. Research on s gma .................................................................................................................................. 19 1.3.6. Choosing not to have children in Aotearoa New Zealand .................................................................... 22 1.4. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................ 23 1.5. RESEARCH QUESTION ..................................................................................................................................... 25 CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 26 2.1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 26 2.2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................................................... 26 2.2.1. Feminist poststructuralism ....................................................................................................................... 27 2.2.1.1. Language and discourse ..................................................................................................................................... 27 2.2.1.2. Power ................................................................................................................................................................. 30 2.2.1.3. Subjec vity and subject posi ons ...................................................................................................................... 32 2.2.4. Resistance ............................................................................................................................................................. 33 2.2.2. Reproduc ve Jus ce theory ...................................................................................................................... 34 2.3. METHOD ............................................................................................................................................................. 36 2.3.1. Recruitment .............................................................................................................................................. 36 2.3.2. Par cipants .............................................................................................................................................. 37 2.3.3. Data Collec on ......................................................................................................................................... 38 2.3.4. Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 39 2.3.5. Quality Assurance ..................................................................................................................................... 41 2.4. ETHICAL CONCERNS ............................................................................................................................................... 43 2.4.1. Informed Consent ..................................................................................................................................... 43 2.4.2. Confiden ality .......................................................................................................................................... 43 2.4.3. Beneficence .............................................................................................................................................. 43 vii 2.4.4. Data usage ............................................................................................................................................... 44 2.4.5. Cultural considera ons and Te Tiri o Waitangi ...................................................................................... 44 2.5. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................ 44 CHAPTER THREE: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................... 46 3.1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS .............................................................................................................. 46 3.2. PART ONE: NON-CONFRONTATIONAL RESISTANCE ........................................................................................... 47 3.2.1. Discursive strategy 1. Child-freedom as an equally valid alterna ve to motherhood .............................. 47 3.2.1.1. “We’re all different” - resis ng homogenisa on by emphasising diversity ........................................................ 48 3.2.1.2. “Different life paths” .......................................................................................................................................... 50 3.2.1.3. “Non-maternal ins nct”: naturalising being childfree ....................................................................................... 51 3.2.2. Discursive strategy 2. It’s no big deal: Minimising and normalising being childfree ................................ 53 3.2.2.1. It just happened: child-freedom as a non-choice ............................................................................................... 53 3.2.2.2. I don’t really talk about it: child-freedom as a non-issue ................................................................................... 55 3.2.2.3. It doesn't define me: minimising childfree iden ty ........................................................................................... 57 3.3. PART TWO: CRITICAL RESISTANCE ..................................................................................................................... 58 3.3.1. Discursive construc on 1. Regret-free: resis ng a deficit iden ty............................................................ 59 3.3.1.1. “I haven’t missed out”........................................................................................................................................ 59 3.3.1.2. Non-tradi onal ageing ....................................................................................................................................... 60 3.3.1.3. “It’s just given me freedom”: The benefits of voluntary childlessness ............................................................... 64 3.3.2. Discursive construc on 2. Motherhood is op onal, obviously”: Resis ng the ‘motherhood mandate’ through liberatory discourses ............................................................................................................................. 66 3.3.2.1. “I didn’t want that”: rejec ng tradi onal gender roles ...................................................................................... 66 3.3.2.2. “It’s a choice, not a determinant”: Drawing on discourses of women’s libera on ............................................ 68 3.3.2.3. Pros and cons ..................................................................................................................................................... 70 3.4. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................ 72 CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUDING DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 73 4.1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 73 4.2. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................ 74 4.3. REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ........................................................................................................................ 77 4.4. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................ 79 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 81 APPENDIX A: INFORMATION SHEET ..................................................................................................................... 87 APPENDIX B: CONSENT FORM .............................................................................................................................. 90 APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW GUIDE ..................................................................................................................... 91 8 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 Introduction As a childfree woman in my mid-30s, I have become increasingly interested in reproductive freedom and the decision not to have children. Within the context of abortion becoming legal in 2021 in my home country of Aotearoa, New Zealand, while currently undergoing bans in many states in the United States where I currently live, my interest in reproductive decision-making has only grown. In reviewing existing research on voluntary childlessness, I noticed a lack of inquiry into diverse identities and an absence of childfree people in older age. Additionally, there was a gap in the research focused on the gendered differences of childfree people’s experiences. With my research, I wanted to add to the limited research on older, childfree women, illuminating their voices which have largely been absent from research on voluntary childlessness. I also wanted to study voluntary childlessness within a New Zealand context, which has not yet been researched. Childlessness is becoming more common in Aotearoa New Zealand and across the globe, with an increasing number of individuals choosing not to have children (Allen & Wiles, 2013; Boddington & Didham, 2009; Sappleton, 2018). This has led to increased research inquiry exploring the reasons behind and impact of the decision not to have children, both for individuals and for society. However, as I discuss in this chapter, research beyond childbearing/middle-age is scarce (de Medeiros & Rubinstein, 2018; Stahnke et al., 2020) and tends to homogenise older, childless people. Accordingly, research has largely failed to capture the diversity of older childless individuals, the impact of choice, and the role of gender and other identity factors on their experiences. Moreover, as I show in this chapter, pronatalism, an ideology that celebrates parenthood and encourages reproduction, acts as the broad backdrop to reproductive decision- making and affects different people in different ways according to intersecting identity categories (e.g., age, gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status) (McCutcheon, 2018). The gendered nature of voluntary childlessness, and its presumed negative consequences for women in older age, means that inquiry into the experiences of voluntarily childless older women from a variety of social locations is needed. 9 I begin this chapter with a note on terminology, which has been debated both by researchers and voluntarily childless individuals. I will then provide an overview of the research to date, gaps in the research, and the rationale behind my research question. 1.2. A note on terminology Terms such as voluntarily childless, and the more colloquial ‘childless-by-choice’, have more recently been critiqued for implying that people who do not have children inherently lack something in their lives, constructing them as deficient and contributing to the pronatalist assumption that parenthood is essential to personal fulfilment (Hayfield et al., 2019; Morison et al., 2016; Stahnke et al., 2020). Consequently, the term ‘childfree’ has become commonly used by individuals without children, and increasingly by researchers, to reflect agency and reject narratives of lack (Blackstone & Stewart, 2012; Lynch et al., 2018; Moore & Geist-Martin, 2013). The term childfree emphasises that some individuals have made a choice to forgo having children and experience a sense of personal freedom due to being without children (Blackstone & Stewart, 2012). The use of childfree terminology by researchers, then, hints at a move from assumptions of deviance and deficiency towards a more positive construction of childfree women (Lynch et al., 2018). However, childfree terminology has also been criticised for focusing too much on individual choice and implying a dislike of children (Allen & Wiles, 2013; Morison et al., 2016). Additionally, individuals who are voluntarily childless, childless-by-choice, or childfree, may not identify with these terms (Moore, 2014). I therefore use these terms interchangeably throughout my research to acknowledge disputes around terminology and include a diverse range of participant identities. 1.3. Research on voluntary childlessness Both experiences of and research on voluntary childlessness, and reproductive choice in general, have been shaped by the dominant discourse of pronatalism which encourages reproduction. Childlessness was historically assumed to be a non-choice based on the pronatalist assumption that people, especially married, heterosexual people, both want to and should have children (Veevers, 1973, p. 199). Consequently, little attention was paid to those who had chosen not to have children, leading to the experiences and perspectives of voluntarily childless individuals remaining understudied and, therefore, poorly understood (Lynch et al., 2018; Shapiro, 2014). In recent years, there has been a growing interest in voluntary childlessness among researchers (Shapiro, 2014). However, this research remains limited, continuing to be shaped by 10 the pronatalist assumption that voluntarily remaining childfree is an abnormal phenomenon requiring explanation. Accordingly, voluntarily childless individuals have often been pathologised, as researchers have studied personality traits, the so-called ‘risk factors’ to becoming childfree, the pathways leading to voluntary childlessness, and the presumed negative consequences of this reproductive decision on wellbeing, particularly later in life (Lynch et al., 2018; Macleod et al., 2019; Shapiro, 2014). In this way, psychological research has reinforced dominant cultural narratives that construct voluntarily childless people as deviant and, therefore, position them lower on the social hierarchy than parents. Moreover, research on voluntary childlessness has been predominantly quantitative, mostly originating in North America, and focused on a homogenous group of individuals (Lynch et al., 2018; Stahnke et al., 2020). Shaped by pronatalist ideology, research has reinforced parenthood as a natural stage of adult development and essential for a fulfilled life (Harrington, 2019; Lynch et al., 2018). These taken-for-granted assumptions have shaped which reproductive decisions, and for whom, are deemed questionable and worthy of research inquiry. Accordingly, as outlined by Lynch et al. (2018), socially privileged women deemed “fit to reproduce” (p. 34) have been the primary subject of research on voluntary childlessness; predominantly white, middle-class, heterosexual, married women of childbearing age, for whom reproduction is encouraged and expected. Understandings of child-freedom have therefore largely been drawn from this homogenous group of women, but pronatalism affects women, and all people, in different ways. More research is needed on a diverse range of individuals from different socio-cultural contexts to understand the diversity of experiences of those who have chosen not to have children, including understudied groups of women, such as older women, and understudied countries, such as Aotearoa New Zealand. In the following sections, I discuss the existing research and identified gaps in the research, namely: who would choose not to have children, and why, the role of gender, the assumption of negative consequences, childfree older women, and research on stigma. I will then follow with an exploration of the limited research within the local context of Aotearoa New Zealand before outlining my research question. 11 1.3.1. Who would choose not to have children, and why? Early research sought to categorise voluntarily childless individuals by searching for universal truths and ‘risk factors’ that lead to the decision not to parent (Allen & Wiles, 2013; Blackstone & Stewart, 2012; Macleod et al., 2019; Shapiro, 2014). This began with demographic enquiries seeking to understand and explain who the voluntarily childless are. This research suggests that voluntary childless individuals are more likely to be white, have a higher education, higher income, more professional and managerial roles, and live in urban areas (Basten, 2009; Blackstone, 2014; Boddington & Didham, 2009; Shapiro, 2014; Waren & Pals, 2013). It also suggests that voluntarily childless individuals tend to be less religious and hold less traditional ideas about gender roles (Basten, 2009; Waren & Pals, 2013). These demographic inquiries are motivated by the need to explain the reasons for childfree individuals’ deviance from the parenthood norm. In a recent systematic literature review, Macleod et al., (2019, p. 32) point to the “normalised absence” of parenthood and “pathologised presence” of childlessness in reproductive research. They explain that the decision to have children is seen as unremarkable and ‘normal’ such that it remains largely absent from research, except in cases of socially marginalised individuals such as those considered too young, too poor, or otherwise unsuitable for parenthood (Macleod et al., 2019; Morison et al., 2016). In contrast, voluntarily forgoing reproduction and parenthood is seen as questionable and ‘abnormal’ so that women who decide to remain childfree are problematised, deemed worthy objects of research and requiring explanation. To further understand and explain voluntarily childless individuals, researchers also began to explore the different ‘pathways’ to childlessness. This research sought to explain how and why people stray from reproductive norms. Early research grouped pathways to voluntary childlessness into two categories: (1) ‘early articulators’ who decide not to have children early and stick to that decision, and (2) ‘perpetual postponers’ who delay parenthood until they can no longer have children (Blackstone & Stewart, 2012). This initial binary categorisation fails to capture the multitude of pathways that can lead to the decision not to have children (Allen & Wiles, 2013; Harrington, 2019; Lynch et al., 2018; Shapiro, 2014). More recent research has problematised this oversimplification, finding that individuals may decide early on and stick to this decision, defer parenthood for a multitude of reasons, initially intend to have children and change their minds 12 later, or end up childless by chance and happy with the outcome (Boddington & Didham, 2009; Lynch et al., 2018). Therefore, the choice not to parent may be passive or active and is more complex and nuanced than a simple, one-off decision (Basten, 2009; Moore, 2014; Settle & Brumley, 2014). For example, in a qualitative study examining the experiences of intentionally childfree women in mid-life, DeLyser (2012) found that women revisited and re-evaluated the possibility of becoming a mother or remaining childfree multiple times throughout their life course. Thus, the pathways to childlessness can be understood as diverse and varied, rather than a universal experience. Research on the pathways to childlessness has also explored the potential macro- and micro-level motivations for remaining childfree (Blackstone & Stewart, 2012). Macro-level motivations include the rise of feminism, the increasing participation of women in the workforce, and more reproductive freedoms including contraception and abortion (Blackstone & Stewart, 2012). Research suggests that these societal changes have given many women more reproductive and life choices, leading to higher levels of voluntary childlessness due to its availability as an option. More recently, societal concerns such as climate change have also been cited as a factor in the decision to remain childfree (Helm et al., 2021). On a micro-level, researchers have explored individual motivations in relation to individual freedom (Blackstone & Stewart, 2012). For example, Gillespie (2003) found that women felt a pull towards remaining childfree to retain personal freedom, and a push away from motherhood, with the responsibilities and perceived loss of identity it entails. Carmichael and Whittaker (2007) also found that individuals chose childlessness as a rejection of the maternal role, preferring the freedom of non-parenthood to the lifestyle changes that come with being a parent. The focus on women’s freedom has, however, also been criticised as overly simplistic and contributing to the construction of childfree women as selfish, individualistic, less nurturing, and less warm than mothers (Shapiro, 2014). A narrow focus on freedom fails to consider the multitude of factors contributing to the decision not to parent. Indeed, some voluntarily childless women do cite several freedoms that come with a childfree identity as contributing to their decision, including the freedom to pursue self-development and hobbies, travel, have a rewarding career, more money, and more rewarding intimate relationships (Gillespie, 2003; Houseknecht, 1987; Mollen, 2006; Park, 2005). Yet, others cite different motivations: that their personalities are not suited to 13 motherhood, that they have never wanted children, or altruistic motivations such as environmental concerns or the ability to volunteer their time and contribute positively to society (Mollen, 2006; Park, 2005; Settle & Brumley, 2014; Shapiro, 2014). While discourses of choice and freedom allow for different embodiments of femininity, they can also decontextualise reproductive decisions, removing them from the socio-cultural context in which they occur, including considerable social pressure to fit in with gendered norms of femininity by becoming a mother and widespread stigmatisation of women who decline motherhood (Riley et al., 2018). The narrow focus on freedom also highlights mainstream (white) feminism’s problematic treatment of women as a homogenous group with equal concerns (Morison, 2021). In focusing predominantly on heterosexual, married, middle-class, white women’s experiences, researchers have framed the concerns of these socially privileged women, such as freedom to pursue a meaningful career or their own personal interests, as synonymous with the reproductive concerns of all women. Additionally, the focus on inquiring into women’s pathways to voluntary childlessness reinforces the taken-for-granted assumption that women are most responsible for reproductive decision-making, as I will explore further in the following section. 1.3.2. The role of gender Voluntary childlessness is a gendered phenomenon (Moore, 2014; Morison, 2021). Research on voluntary childlessness has largely focused on women, partly due to the essentialist assumption that women are responsible for reproductive decisions and valued for their reproductive capacity (Basten, 2009; Shapiro, 2014). The intersection of gender essentialism and pronatalism is evident in the “motherhood mandate” (Russo, 1976, p. 143), which equates womanhood with motherhood and constructs motherhood as evidence of ‘good’ femininity. Thus, mothers are seen as embodying ideal femininity, while non-mothers are deemed abnormal and worthy of research inquiry. Dominant discourses of pronatalism also construct the desire to have children as a maternal instinct, suggesting that all women should possess a biological drive to have children and, therefore, be the drivers of reproductive decision-making. Accordingly, women are deemed more responsible for deviance from the parenthood norm than men, with voluntarily childless women deemed more questionable than voluntarily childless men. 14 Research on voluntarily childless women has largely focused on demographic characteristics and personality traits, in addition to exploring their pathways to and motivations for child-freedom as previously explored. In focusing on the characteristics of childfree, researchers have sought to understand and explain which women would choose to remain childfree and why. This research suggests that voluntarily childless women are more likely to have obtained higher education, are more represented in professional and managerial jobs, and are less traditional in gender roles (Shapiro, 2014). Research has not supported the assertion that women's voluntary childlessness is primarily due to career commitment. Instead, many women cite a desire for a higher quality of life as their motivation for remaining childfree, often expressing aspirations for early retirement or financial stability (Shapiro, 2014). Ultimately, research into why women remain childfree reveals varied and nuanced motivations and pathways to becoming childfree, suggesting that the experience of women’s (non)reproductive decision-making is not universal (Settle & Brumley, 2014). Though research has focused primarily on women as subjects, little attention has been paid to the gendered nature of voluntarily childless women’s experiences through the lens of power and oppression. Gender is not the only source of oppression for women, instead there are multiple identity factors, such as race, class, and sexuality, that contribute to women’s diverse (non)reproductive experiences (Sappleton, 2018). Moreover, pronatalism is inherently intersectional, affecting women of different identity factors and social locations in different ways (Morison, 2021; Morison et al., 2016). As previously mentioned, voluntary childlessness is a more stigmatised identity when occupied by socially privileged women for whom reproduction is encouraged and expected (Lynch et al., 2018). This intersection of pronatalism and the motherhood mandate has shaped research, which has only asked those women considered desirable, or fit to reproduce, to justify their decision not to have children (Hayfield et al., 2019). Hence, the diversity of women’s experiences has been largely ignored, with women being treated as a homogeneous group in reproductive research. Consequently, researchers have predominantly valued the experiences of heterosexual women, resulting in the absence of lesbian, bisexual, and queer women from research on voluntary childlessness, who are often assumed to be childless by default. One exception is Hayfield et al. (2019), who took an intersectional approach, examining the diversity of childfree women’s 15 experiences in relation to different identity factors to see how heterosexual, lesbian, bisexual, and queer women negotiate their childfree identities in response to the motherhood mandate. Through this intersectional approach, the diversity of childfree women’s experiences can be illuminated. Due to the gendered assumption that women are responsible for reproductive decision- making, men have been largely absent from research on voluntay childlessness. However, childfree men also make reproductive decisions, face social and societal pressures to become parents, and also occupy stigmatised identities, with fatherhood perceived as a normal stage of adult development (Blackstone & Stewart, 2016). Very little research has focused on men alone, but some research, mostly qualitative in nature, has recently begun to explore the gendered nature of voluntary childlessness in studies including both women and men. The findings of this emerging work suggest that the experience of childfree men differs from that of childfree women (Blackstone, 2014). For example, a qualitative study by Park (2005) suggests that men and women have different motivations and pathways to childlessness, with men citing a lack of desire to sacrifice financially and otherwise, and women wanting to pursue career and leisure activities that they felt would be incompatible with motherhood. Similarly, Keizer et al. (2008), Parr (2010), and Waren and Pals (2013) also found some significant differences between voluntarily childless women and men, with higher education and higher-status jobs increasing a woman’s likelihood of remaining childfree but decreasing that likelihood for men. To explore gendered differences further, Blackstone and Stewart (2016) employed a qualitative approach to illuminate the complexity of the decision-making processes of childfree men and women. They found gendered patterns in their research, with men citing consequences for their own lives and women citing the external consideration of others or more altruistic motives as reasoning for choosing non-parenthood. This research begins to illuminate the gendered nature of voluntary childlessness. However, more research is needed to understand the role of gender in the childfree experience. Importantly, the exploration of gendered experience should take care to avoid reinforcing gender essentialist discourse. Despite the gendered nature of voluntary childlessness, there is a clear lack of feminist research in this area (Blackstone & Stewart, 2012; Lynch et al., 2018). A few researchers have begun to inquire into voluntary childlessness through the lens of feminism, examining the role of 16 power and discourse in shaping feminine identities that sit outside the motherhood norm. For example, Moore (2014) explored identity construction online, taking a feminist poststructuralist approach to examine how childfree women used discourse to construct a positive childfree identity online. Similarly, Gillespie (2003) also used a qualitative approach to examine the gender identity of voluntarily childless women through the lens of feminism. This research found that, through a rejection of motherhood as innate, these women were able to construct a “childfree femininity” (p. 134). This works to disrupt taken-for-granted truths that suggest women must become mothers to achieve fulfilment, instead allowing the embodiment of a positive feminine identity without motherhood. 1.3.3. The assumption of negative consequences Research on ageing childlessness has been shaped by the assumption of lack and need, reinforcing dominant narratives that suggest childlessness has negative consequences on the individual and society as a whole (Albertini & Kohli, 2009). Within pronatalist discourse, children are constructed as necessary for providing social support, care, and security in old age or ill health (Letherby, 2002; Morison et al., 2016; O’Driscoll & Mercer, 2018). Consequently, researchers have largely attempted to discover whether childless older people (a) have lesser social support systems and have poorer physical and mental health outcomes than older parents, and (b) are a financial and care burden on society (Albertini & Kohli, 2009; Basten, 2009; Dykstra & Wagner, 2007; Křenková, 2019). At the individual level, research has focused on individual deficit, grounded in the pronatalist assumption that childless people lack something in their lives and that their childlessness (whether voluntary or involuntary) will have a negative impact on their wellbeing as they age. In fact, research has revealed few, if any, negative consequences of childlessness on wellbeing over the life course (Allen & Wiles, 2013; Blackstone & Stewart, 2012). For example, Umberson et al. (2010) found that childlessness, whether voluntary or involuntary, had varying advantages and disadvantages for different groups of people. Though childless individuals have been found to have smaller social networks, less contact with family, and a greater likelihood of receiving professional help and entering institutionalised care in old age, research suggests that their social networks are more diverse, including more contact with friends and neighbours, and 17 points to their childfree status having no negative effect on their overall wellbeing (Křenková, 2019). Research has begun to explore the diversity of childfree experiences in old age, finding that experiences differ based on identity factors such as gender and relationship status (Křenková, 2019; Stegen et al., 2021; Vikström et al., 2011). This research suggests that individual wellbeing in later life is more complex and nuanced than parenthood status alone. In this vein, research conducted by Allen and Wiles (2013) in Aotearoa New Zealand examined how older, voluntarily and involuntarily childless men and women positioned themselves in the face of stigma. Through this research, they began to illuminate the nuanced nature of childlessness across the life course and shed light on the diversity of childless individuals, stating that binary categorisations (such as involuntarily and voluntarily childless) are insufficient to consider the diversity of childless experiences. At the societal level, childlessness is constructed as having negative consequences on societal productivity and prosperity, with ageing childless people frequently framed as a societal burden, putting strain on the welfare system, healthcare, and aged care facilities (Albertini & Kohli, 2009; Boddington & Didham, 2009; Dykstra & Wagner, 2007). However, research on the social consequences of childlessness has not supported the assumption that childless people’s societal contribution is inherently negative. Furthermore, a few researchers have begun to reframe older childlessness by exploring the positive contributions of childless individuals, challenging the notion that childlessness is synonymous with negative societal outcomes. For example, research by Albertini and Kohli (2009) conducted across 10 countries in Europe focused on what childfree people give to their communities, finding that people without children have diverse social networks and contribute to the wellbeing of others through voluntary and charity work. In a similar vein, research by Cwikel et al. (2006) conducted in Australia found that older, never-married childless women did not constitute a social burden but that they were coping financially, often had health insurance, and “while they are less likely to be providing family caregiving, they are considerably more likely to provide volunteer services.” (p. 1999). This research contradicts the dominant ideology that constructs voluntarily childless individuals as less 18 productive members of society who burden the system through their need for financial and social support. Considering the assumption of negative consequences focusing on older age, much of the research including older people commonly groups childless and childfree men and women together. Little attention has been paid to the role of choice and gender in shaping older, childfree people’s experiences. Accordingly, as I will outline further below, more research exploring the gendered experiences of voluntary and involuntary childlessness in older age is needed. 1.3.4. Childfree older women As previously mentioned, voluntary childlessness is a gendered issue. While it is widely assumed that voluntary childlessness will have negative consequences for women in later life, research on voluntary childless women beyond middle age remains scarce (Allen & Wiles, 2013; de Medeiros & Rubinstein, 2018; Harrington, 2019; Stahnke et al., 2020). The exclusion of older women from voluntary childlessness research is related to the treatment of voluntarily childless women as a largely homogenous group in research, assuming a universal experience (Morison, 2021; Shapiro, 2014). As previously explored, pronatalist discourses construct several intersecting motherhood norms, which determine which women are deemed fit to reproduce and are, therefore, expected to do so (Macleod et al., 2019). As a result, these women are most often the subject of enquiry for research on voluntary childlessness (Moore, 2014). This has led researchers to focus on younger women, of ‘childbearing age’, who belong to these privileged categories (Blackstone & Stewart, 2012; Lynch et al., 2018). Consequently, the views of older, childfree women have been largely excluded from research inquiry. The limited research on childlessness in later life continues to group all childless older women, failing to capture the diversity of childless experiences. Only a few researchers have begun to explore the experiences of older, childfree women. For example, DeLyser (2012) inquired as to whether menopause may trigger a sense of regret in the lives of voluntarily childless women aged 46 to 60, however, this research did not confirm that hypothesis. Instead, these women expressed a lack of regret in their decision to remain childfree. Stahnke et al. (2020), examining the experiences of childfree women over the age of 65 in the United States, found that the women felt a sense of fulfilment and meaningful connection with younger generations in their lives. The 19 limited research conducted suggests that older, childfree women perform identity work to construct a positive identity in the face of stigma (de Medeiros & Rubinstein, 2018). However, it remains that little is understood about older, childfree women and more research is needed on this group. The importance of including older women in research on voluntary childlessness lies in the unique interaction between age, gender, and their childfree status. Dominant constructions of femininity primarily value women for their beauty, youth, and reproductive capability (Chen et al., 2020; de Medeiros & Rubinstein, 2018; Kincaid, 2022). Recent research by Kincaid (2022) emphasises the gendered nature of ageism, which impacts men and women differently. Of note is the diminishing social power experienced by women as they age beyond 50–60 years old, attributed to dominant constructions of ideal femininity valuing women primarily as either sexual objects or mothers (Kincaid, 2022). That is, women are valued for their capacity to reproduce and raise children. Hence, multiple deficit identities are attached to older, childfree women, leaving them open to stigma. Research on stigma will be explored further in the following section. 1.3.5. Research on stigma Stigma research has historically focused on documenting the negative perceptions and biases against voluntarily childless individuals (Koropeckyj-Cox et al., 2018). This research has led to an understanding of the general perceptions of childfree individuals as cold, selfish, materialistic, individualistic, and undesirable (Harrington, 2019; Park, 2002; Shapiro, 2014). Recent research suggests that these negative perceptions of childfree people have persisted. For example, research has shown that childfree individuals are perceived as less psychologically fulfilled than parents and elicit moral outrage from their reproductive decisions (Ashburn-Nardo, 2017; Bays, 2017; Ekelund & Ask, 2021). Moreover, the decision to remain childfree has been shown to require defence in conversations with others, whereas the decision to have children does not (Hintz & Brown, 2019). For example, Hintz and Brown (2020) investigated the dismissal of the decision to remain childfree as legitimate by examining the discussion of “bingos” (p. 244) experienced by childfree individuals online. Bingos can be defined as challenging a person’s own values or identity, for example, questioning their childfree status with quick dismissals such as ‘you will change your mind’, which frame parenthood as inevitable and their childfree identity as a temporary state (Hintz & Brown, 2020). As such, childfree identities are disbelieved and disregarded, constructed as illegitimate or unacceptable (Gillespie, 2000). 20 While research has primarily focused on documenting stigma, some more recent discursive research has begun to explore how childfree people negotiate stigma, which involves either repurposing dominant discourses to claim a positive identity or drawing on alternative discourses to create new explanations. For instance, Morison et al. (2016) examined how childfree people utilised dominant discourses of choice to either position themselves as autonomous, rational decision-makers or frame themselves as “naturally childfree” (p. 134), thus minimising personal responsibility for their childfree status. Similarly, Park (2002) found that voluntarily childless people used a diverse range of communication strategies to negotiate their stigma and retain a positive self-identity. This included defensive techniques that accepted and used pronatalist narratives, intermediate techniques which challenged dominant narratives, and proactive techniques to reframe childlessness as a valuable lifestyle (Park, 2002). As previously mentioned, women are primarily held responsible for reproductive decision- making and, therefore, any negative outcomes of non-parenthood. Researchers have only recently begun to explore the gendered nature of stigma (Shapiro, 2014). From this research, we know that childfree women experience unique marginalisation and stigma in relation to their (non)reproductive status (Bays, 2017; Hintz & Brown, 2019; Moore, 2014; Shapiro, 2014). For example, research by Ciaccio et al. (2021) examined the gendered nature of stigma, finding that men and women received backlash for their childfree identities in different ways. Further, Hintz and Brown (2019) found that when women request sterilisation procedures, they face a unique stigma during the medical consultation. This included the physician relying on pronatalist assumptions that the women would later regret their decision, consequently denying them access to the sterilisation procedure. This study adds further nuance to our understanding of gendered stigma in relation to power and oppression, with medical professionals acting as the gatekeepers to women’s bodies and the reproductive options available to them. Research on the gendered nature of stigma suggests it is not simply the fact that childfree women have not had children but the fact that they did not want to that leaves them open to stigma (Shapiro, 2014). According to Wilson (2014, as cited in Harrington, 2019), women are categorised into three groups; mothers (good and bad), those who are desperately infertile but curable through technology or adoption, or the militantly childfree suspected of careerism or lesbianism. This 21 suggests that pronatalist assumptions continue to shape understandings of women in relation to their reproductive status. As a result, voluntarily childless women are stigmatised, being constructed as selfish, immature, and ultimately deviant (Shapiro, 2014; Shaw, 2012). This stigmatisation can be seen as a form of gender policing, where society demands that people adhere to the normative gender expression of their biological birth sex (Harrington, 2019). As motherhood is constructed as normative, or ‘good’, womanhood in dominant narratives, those women who do not reproduce are exposed to stigma and marginalisation. Research shows women who ‘fail’ to correctly express their gender through becoming mothers are considered ‘failed’ women, reducing their power in society (Macleod et al., 2019). However, it is the choice to deviate from the norm that deems voluntarily childless women responsible for that ‘failure’. Thus, the voluntarily childless woman is portrayed as unnatural and abnormal, eliciting moral outrage from others (Ashburn-Nardo, 2017; Hintz & Brown, 2019). Contrastingly, involuntarily childless women do not elicit blame and outrage for their childlessness, as it was not chosen. This results in voluntarily childless women being perceived as cold, materialistic, and selfish, while mothers and involuntarily childless women are perceived as warm, kind, more caring, and nurturing (Bays, 2017; Koropeckyj-Cox et al., 2018). A few studies have explored how women in particular manage the stigma of their childfree identities. This was first considered in the 1970s when Veevers discovered two strategies used by childfree women to manage stigma: (1) concealing their decision to remain childfree by suggesting conformity, or (2) expressing beliefs and values that are incompatible with motherhood (Blackstone & Stewart, 2012). More recent research has further explored the construction of childfree femininities to manage stigma. For example, Moore (2021) found that women reject narratives of regret in online communities by claiming a ‘fixed’ or ‘repaired’ subjectivity after voluntary sterilisation. Thus, these women construct their childfree identities as natural, challenging the idea that motherhood is an innate, biological desire for all women. In a similar vein, Gillespie (2000) found that women created a radicalised feminine identity outside of motherhood, challenging pronatalist discourses that equate motherhood with ideal femininity. 22 Furthermore, in an attempt to add more nuance to gendered stigma research, Hayfield et al. (2019), explored how heterosexual, lesbian, bisexual, and queer women construct their childfree identities. This research found that women were constantly negotiating their childfree status to establish themselves as ordinary, rational, and reasonable. By focusing on diverse sexualities, the researchers also highlighted how intersecting identity factors shape women’s experiences of child- freedom and the importance of exploring this nuance. Research on stigma negotiation and how women create new narratives and meaning through discourse provides nuance and illuminates people’s agency in constructing their own non-reproductive identities. 1.3.6. Choosing not to have children in Aotearoa New Zealand Research on voluntary childlessness in Aotearoa New Zealand is scarce. The limited research on childlessness in Aotearoa New Zealand has focused on the circumstantially childless (e.g., Tonkin, 2015, as cited in Shaw, 2012) or explaining the trends in, and implications of, childlessness (e.g., Boddington & Didham, 2009). Through this limited research, we know that childlessness is rising in Aotearoa New Zealand, including more people choosing not to have children. However, little is understood about the motivations, decision-making processes, and experiences of childfree people in Aotearoa New Zealand. A few researchers have documented the stigma and social pressure experienced by childfree individuals in Aotearoa New Zealand, suggesting that negative attitudes towards voluntary childlessness remain, with childfree people seen as selfish, individualistic, materialistic, anti- children, unfulfilled, immature, and lonely (Shaw, 2012). For example, research by Riley (as cited in Shaw, 2012) and Cameron (1990, 1997, as cited in Shaw, 2012) suggests that childfree identity in Aotearoa New Zealand is met with disapproval, social pressure, negative stereotypes, social exclusion, and isolation. This implies that attitudes towards childlessness in Aotearoa New Zealand mirror those of other contexts, but more research is needed to better understand the diverse realities of childfree people in Aotearoa New Zealand. One exception is research by Allen and Wiles (2013), which illuminated the diversity of late-life childlessness in Aotearoa New Zealand. The researchers explored how older, childless men and women construct their childlessness, using positioning theory to make sense of childless people’s narratives about their lives. This research challenged the oversimplification of childlessness as fitting into the binary, homogenous categories of 23 ‘voluntary’ or ‘involuntary’. As such, Allen and Wiles (2013) call for further research to explore the diversity of childless and childfree experiences in Aotearoa New Zealand and beyond. 1.4. Conclusion In this chapter, I examined how pronatalist assumptions have shaped research on voluntary childlessness, concentrating primarily on who becomes voluntarily childless, how and why, and the anticipated negative effects of that choice. Further, researchers have largely used quantitative approaches, grouped involuntarily and voluntarily childless people together, and focused on a homogenous sample of women deemed most fit to reproduce, ignoring the role of identity factors such as gender, age, race, sexuality, socioeconomic status, and culture, to name a few. More qualitative research on a diverse range of individuals from different socio-cultural contexts is needed to better understand the diversity of childfree experiences throughout the life course. Despite the evidence that voluntary childlessness is a gendered experience, there is a clear lack of feminist research on the subject (Shapiro, 2014). Only a few researchers have explored ageing childlessness, and very few have considered the role of choice and the intersection of gender and other identity factors such as age, race, and sexuality. Thus, research has failed to explore the diverse realities of women’s reproductive decision-making, concealing the different ways in which pronatalist discourses affect different women’s reproductive freedoms (Morison et al., 2016). The taken-for-granted assumption that less privileged women should not or will not reproduce has led to a lack of inquiry into their voluntary childlessness. As a result, few studies have examined the decision not to parent among ‘Other’ women, such as lesbian women, women who are not white, women of low socio-economic status, or those who are unmarried (Hayfield et al., 2019; Settle & Brumley, 2014). Therefore, little is understood about these women’s pathways to remaining childfree. Accordingly, more nuanced research that considers the diversity of women, with a diverse range of people in a range of socio-cultural contexts, is needed. Speaking to this gap, some qualitative research adds some nuance to what we already know about the pathways to childlessness, illuminating the diversity and complexity of the decision to remain childfree. For example, Keizer et al. (2008) found that pathways to childlessness differed significantly by gender. Similarly, Blackstone and Stewart (2016) examined how men and women make the decision to remain childfree, illuminating the complexity of their decision-making as a 24 lengthy process of careful deliberation, rather than a single, one-off decision, and highlighting the gendered nature of the experience. To understand the diversity of pathways to voluntary childlessness, Settle and Brumley (2014) explored the reproductive decision-making process of childfree women with a diverse range of identity factors, including race, age, marital status, and occupations. They found that women of colour had differing pathways to remaining childfree than white women, with all women of colour in this study being single, citing the lack of a suitable partner in their decision not to parent, and experiencing more uncertainty throughout their decision-making process (Settle & Brumley, 2014). This suggests that the role of gender, social privilege, race, and other identity differences in the choice to remain childfree needs further exploration. Moreover, this research has often grouped childless individuals together, failing to consider the diversity of experiences depending on whether childlessness was voluntary or involuntary, along with the multitude of factors that contribute to an individual’s wellbeing over the course of their life. As previously discussed, most research has used the experiences of a homogenous group of women of childbearing age as a universal truth. As a result, we have a limited understanding of the diversity of voluntary childless women’s views and experiences and how this plays out across the life course, into old age. As many of the presumed negative stereotypes and consequences of voluntary childlessness involve the wellbeing of women in old age, I suggest that this is an important population largely missing from the research. Within the context of Aotearoa New Zealand, which has an ageing population, this research will become more important as more voluntarily childless women grow old (Allen & Wiles, 2013; Stahnke et al., 2020). Accordingly, more research is needed to provide nuance and diversity to the experiences of childless people into old age. With the identified gaps in the current research in mind, I propose a focus on older women who have passed their ‘childbearing’ years. Taking a feminist poststructuralist approach, I will aim to include a diverse selection of women from different intersecting identity factors in Aotearoa New Zealand, including race, class, and sexuality, to gain an understanding of diverse experiences through the lens of reproductive justice. My motivation for exploring voluntary childlessness through this feminist lens is based on the deeply gendered nature of the issue. This is not to erase or minimise the involvement of men and partners in reproductive decisions, but instead to 25 acknowledge that women are most often the focus of pronatalist reproductive politics and to explore their gendered experience of occupying a voluntarily childless subject position in society. I seek to understand the experiences of a population that has been largely overlooked in psychological research. This will be the first research in Aotearoa New Zealand to specifically inquire into the experiences of older, voluntarily childless women. With this research, I aim to explore older women’s discursive identity work as they negotiate the stigma of their voluntarily childless identity, through the lens of feminist poststructuralism and reproductive justice. 1.5. Research Question How do older, voluntarily childless women negotiate stigma and construct womanhood without motherhood in their talk? 26 CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY 2.1. Introduction In this chapter, I explain the methodology used to answer my research question, including the theoretical framework and its applicability to my research, data collection and analysis methods, quality assurance, and, finally, ethical concerns. I begin by explicating my theoretical framework, which is comprised of feminist poststructuralist and reproductive justice theories. 2.2. Theoretical framework I have combined feminist poststructuralist and reproductive justice theories to illuminate the complexity and diversity of older women’s experiences of ‘choosing’ not to have children in Aotearoa New Zealand. Feminist poststructuralist theory allows for an exploration of the pronatalist discourses that stigmatise voluntarily childless people and, importantly, illuminates the power relations that oppress and govern women’s reproductive choices. Through this lens, I am able to explore how older, childfree women negotiate the stigma of their voluntary childlessness (Gavey, 1989; Moore, 2014). However, while feminist poststructuralist theory concentrates on gender, it does not as clearly illuminate how other categories of difference interact with gender. I therefore turn to reproductive justice theory. This framework enables the exploration of gendered oppression alongside other identity factors as it draws on the theoretical notion of intersectionality (Parker et al., 2019). Reproductive justice is an excellent tool for examining the diversity of women’s experiences within the socio-cultural context of Aotearoa New Zealand, which demands consideration and protection of tangata whenua, or Māori experiences. The addition of a reproductive justice framework’s intersectional lens complements and adds nuance to my feminist poststructuralist inquiry by focusing specifically on the reproductive issues that impact women along multiple axes of difference (age, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.). This is important because, as discussed in the previous chapter, research on voluntary childlessness has focused predominantly on the experiences of white, middle-class, heterosexual, married women, often failing to mention or explore the impact of identity factors outside of gender, such as age, race, class, and sexuality. Instead, I focus on a group of women who have been excluded from the research due to their age (having passed their ‘childbearing years’). 27 As I shall show, combining reproductive justice theory with a poststructural framework allows for the exploration of how multiple, intersecting identity categories shape the construction of subjectivity (social identity) and sensitises the analysis to the operation of power as re/produced and re/enforced through socio-cultural discourses and practices related to femininity, sexuality, and reproduction (Chiweshe et al., 2017; Parker et al., 2019). Situating my feminist poststructuralist study within the broader framework of reproductive justice allows me to capture the complexity and nuance of the power relations shaping diverse older women’s reproductive choices, including those at the intersection of ageism, pronatalism, racism, and colonialism. As Ross (2017) states, reproductive justice offers a way to apply intersectionality to reproductive politics. 2.2.1. Feminist poststructuralism Feminist poststructuralism focuses on gendered power relations. Using a poststructural theory of language, discourse, and subjectivity, feminist poststructuralism offers a useful framework through which to explore gendered oppression (Davies & Gannon, 2005; Gavey, 1989). This theoretical lens allows researchers to interrogate knowledge about gender, the social identities (subjectivities) it allows, and what seems natural, obvious, and common sense (Gannon & Davies, 2012). Societal truths about gender are related to the historic moment in which they are constructed, illuminating the diversity of women’s experiences. Therefore, intersectionality is critical for feminist poststructuralists to consider as they explore how different identity factors such as age, race, class, and sexuality can shape women’s oppression in different ways (Weedon, 1996). Drawing on feminist poststructuralist inquiry, then, allows researchers to avoid universalising women’s experience, instead exploring how identity factors constitute subjectivity (Parker et al., 2019). Hence, the nuanced identities of women can be explored and illuminated. In the following sections, I will discuss the key tenets of feminist poststructuralism, namely: language and discourse, power, subjectivity, and resistance. 2.2.1.1. Language and discourse The role of language and discourse in exercising power relations and developing individual subjectivity is key to feminist poststructuralist inquiry. Language has traditionally been understood as a mirror of reality, describing the real world, but feminist poststructuralists argue that there is no inherent meaning in language or experience. Instead, language constructs reality. Individuals 28 use language to create meaning, making sense of themselves in relation to the world around them through talk (Gavey, 1989; Weedon, 1996). Thus, social realities are “actively spoken into existence” as people attach meaning to the world through language (Gannon & Davies, 2012, p. 14). Thus, language constructs one’s social reality as it enables individuals to think and speak about their experiences, thereby giving them meaning and making sense of them (Weedon, 1996). One aspect of discourse critical to feminist poststructuralist theory is the use of binary categories. Binaries are a key means of understanding, categorising, and placing people within a social hierarchy. These binaries constrain how people think about themselves in relation to the world, and the possibilities made available to them (Gannon & Davies, 2012). In the example of gender, a key consideration for feminist poststructuralism, the binary gender categories of woman and man are assigned to individuals based on biological sexual differences (Weedon, 1996). Consequently, the female ‘sex’ is conflated with the gender category ‘woman’, attaching social meanings based on collective ‘truths’ about gender, including the expected performance of normative femininity. Feminist poststructuralism aims to “disrupt the grip that binaries have on thought and on identity” (Gannon & Davies, 2012, p. 5). Accordingly, feminist poststructuralists argue that the categories of woman and man have no inherent meaning. Instead, meaning is attached to these categories through discourse and comparison (Weedon, 1996). For example, women have historically been pathologised, as their differences from men are constructed as abnormal compared to the male ‘norm’. Similarly, different ways of being a woman are compared against one another. Through the discourse of mandatory motherhood, bearing and raising children is seen as evidence of being a ‘good’ woman, complying with gender norms, held in direct contrast to women who do not want to bear and raise children, constructed as ‘bad’ by comparison. Hence, social meaning is attached through language in relation to the physical capacity of women to bear children (Weedon, 1996). Feminist poststructuralism illuminates how these discourses, and the political assumptions within them, affect and oppress women. In poststructuralism, language is understood as a set of discourses: ways of understanding the world that people use to make meaning about their lives and the world around them (Gavey, 2011). A discourse is a system of making meaning through language and each one is situated within 29 the wider historical and socio-cultural context within which it occurs and so each represents a socio-culturally and historically specific way of understanding (Burr, 2015). For example, gender essentialist discourses in a socio-cultural context that subscribes to pronatalist ideology (such as Aotearoa New Zealand) posit that motherhood is a biological drive for all women, also called the maternal instinct. Feminist poststructuralism understands this discourse not as absolute truth, but as one way of making meaning about women as subjects. That is, according to feminist poststructuralism, there is no single truth that represents an objective reality, but many versions of reality. Discourses also inform collective meanings, or ‘knowledge’, and limit the language available to us when thinking and speaking about an object (Burr, 2015). If womanhood is understood through the dominant discourse of gender essentialism, the idea of the maternal instinct becomes a collective ‘truth’. Through this lens, motherhood becomes a normative expression of femininity, understood as essential for women to achieve in order to feel fulfilled. By contrast, non-mothers are understood as lacking or abnormal through the lens of gender essentialism. However, it is important to note that feminist poststructuralism also views discourses as dynamic, changing over time and across social contexts. Moreover, multiple discourses exist alongside each other at any given time, offering different, often contradictory, ways of understanding the world (Davies & Gannon, 2005; Gannon & Davies, 2012; Gavey, 1989). For example, the dominant discourse of gender essentialism posits that women are a homogenous group with universal traits, whereas diversity discourse posits that each individual is different, with unique personalities and desires. Diversity discourse implies, then, that women, as individuals, are inherently different from each other, thereby contradicting gender essentialist discourse. As a result, while people are subject to and constrained by the discourses that are available to them, dominant discourses are always susceptible to change or displacement. As different discourses are drawn upon at a micro level, through thinking, speaking, or writing about experiences, people create new or different meanings. The individual is therefore able to modify or challenge discourses, creating alternative ways of understanding the world, and in so doing enact resistance and social change (Burr, 2015; Weedon, 1996). For example, using diversity discourse, individual women can resist the idea that all women have a maternal instinct and create new ways of 30 understanding womanhood. The use of discourse as a means of resistance is explained further below. 2.2.1.2. Power According to feminist poststructuralist theory, power is exercised through discourse. Each discourse offers a different way of knowing and understanding, which constitute different ‘knowledges’. However, not all discourses hold the same power (Burr, 2015; Weedon, 1996). Knowledge is inextricably linked with power, as the groups in power determine which discourses become known as the ultimate ‘truth’ (Burr, 2015; Gannon & Davies, 2012; Gavey, 1989). Knowledge, then, is a set of dominant discourses that benefit the groups in power while marginalising the ‘other’ (Gannon & Davies, 2012; Weedon, 1996). Dominant discourses form collective knowledge and what is understood as normal, natural, and common sense (Gavey, 2011). This, then, determines the norms against which individuals are expected to abide. For instance, according to gender essentialist discourse, becoming a mother is a natural stage of development that all women should aspire to and achieve (Shapiro, 2014). The innate desire to reproduce is referred to as the ‘maternal instinct’, suggesting it is an innate, fixed behaviour all women should possess naturally due to their biological sex. Accordingly, mothers are deemed normal, fully developed women, while non-mothers are pathologised. It is in the assumed naturalness of the dominant discourse that power is exercised and maintained. Dominant discourses hold the status of being obvious, natural, and true and shape the norms against which people are governed and surveilled (Weedon, 1996). In this way, dominant discourses regulate how individuals can look, think, speak, and act, placing them within a social hierarchy (Burr, 2015; Gannon & Davies, 2012). People also govern themselves and others based on the dominant discourse, and established norms, of their particular socio-cultural and historical context. For example, in Western countries that subscribe to pronatalist ideology, parenthood is considered an essential, normal stage of development, especially for married, heterosexual couples. Despite the availability of alternative discourses, power is maintained by the dismissal and suppression of resistant discourses that challenge collective knowledge and the status quo. Accordingly, the dominant discourse of pronatalism retains its power, considered the ultimate ‘truth’. 31 Feminist poststructuralists argue that patriarchal power relations are maintained by making unequal gendered arrangements seem natural and inevitable (Gavey, 2011). For example, within pronatalist discourse, heterosexual relationships, which maintain the nuclear family structure (wife, husband, and children), benefit those in power by maintaining the workforce in capitalist society (Burr, 2015). As alluded to above, traditional Western gender discourse maintains a binary understanding of gender, constructing women as inherently different from men by virtue of biological differences. For instance, discourses of love, marriage, and family present women as naturally more caring and empathic and so inherently suited to the nurturing roles of wife and mother, which are constructed as the only path to fulfilment. These discourses uphold the more powerful position of men in society in relation to women who are persuaded or compelled to provide free domestic labour (Burr, 2015; Gavey, 2011). Furthermore, women who do not fill the prescribed roles of wife and mother threaten the existing power structure and are often subjected to coercion as a form of governance (Weedon, 1996). An example of this is “coercive pronatalism” (Heitlinger, 1991, p. 345) which, according to women’s identity factors and social position, may take the form of others pressuring particular women into having or not having children. For example, while white, heterosexual, middle-class women have struggled to gain the right to avoid unwanted motherhood through access to contraception and abortion, marginalised women have been denied motherhood through coercive birth control measures, including nonconsensual sterilisation (Gillespie, 2003). Importantly, as intimated above, pronatalism, or other forms of oppression, are not experienced equally by all women. Rather, various identity categories shape gendered power relations. Gender intersects with other social categories, such as sexuality (heterosexual/lesbian or bisexual) or reproductive status (mother/non-mother). Each social category is assigned normal or abnormal status by the discourses through which they are understood (Davies & Gannon, 2005). For example, through the pronatalist discourse of family as the key to social order, adult development, and life satisfaction, white, middle-class, heterosexual, married mothers are given power through their normative status, perceived as ideal mothers. Conversely, women with devalued identity characteristics (e.g., non-married, lesbian, childfree, poor mothers, ‘young’ mothers, or ‘old’ mothers) are viewed as Other and open to stigma and marginalisation. Different identity factors shape women’s experiences of privilege and oppression. For example, while 32 women with higher incomes are expected and encouraged to reproduce, with nonreproduction requiring explanation, poorer women may be encouraged to have fewer children through family planning programmes (Shapiro, 2014). Feminist poststructuralism has not traditionally been attuned to these intersections of identity. This theoretical limitation will be discussed further in this chapter. 2.2.1.3. Subjectivity and subject positions From a feminist poststructuralist perspective, in line with the view of reality as socially constructed discussed above, language structures individuals’ understandings of themselves and is the foundation of subjectivity, or social identity. Subjectivity relates to a sense of self, that is how individuals think about and understand themselves in relation to the world, and is socially produced through discourse (Gannon & Davies, 2012; Gavey, 1989; Weedon, 1996). Discourses construct different subject positions, or ways of being, for individuals to take up, including gendered subject positions prescribing how one is expected to look, behave, and find fulfilment (Weedon, 1996). According to feminist poststructuralism, there is no essential self for individuals to enact, so subjectivity is not constant or fixed throughout the life course. Instead, social identity is understood as contradictory, multiple, and constantly in process, being revisited throughout the life course as people use discourse to make sense of themselves in relation to the world (Weedon, 1996). Thus, feminist poststructuralism views the self as fragmented, inconsistent, and contradictory (Gavey, 1989). Every time an individual thinks and speaks, they use different discourses to reconsider and renegotiate their subjectivity. Dominant discourses construct which subjectivities are taken for granted as ‘natural’ or ‘normal’, and thus socially acceptable and desirable, so that people actively take them up, while othered subject positions become unattractive as they lack power and leave the individual open to marginalisation (Davies & Gannon, 2005). There are a range of ‘normal’ subject positions offered within particular discourses (Weedon, 1996). Social identity is produced by an individual’s active use of the discourses available to them, identifying with the subject positions within them or constructing new ways of being through talk (Burr, 2015; Weedon, 1996). Individuals are categorised by the subject positions they take up or construct, and the meanings attached to those subjectivities (Gannon & Davies, 2012). Moreover, subject positions vary regarding the 33 possibilities they allow for action (what is sayable and doable) and, hence, the power afforded to those who subscribe to them (Gavey, 1989). For women, certain versions of femininity have more social and institutional power than others (Weedon, 1996). As indicated above, the primary roles offered to women in pronatalist and traditional gender discourses are wife and mother, as the nuclear family (husband, wife, and children) is constructed as the natural social arrangement and the way to achieve true fulfilment (Weedon, 1996). This leaves women who do not have children open to stigma. Accordingly, motherhood often becomes a more attractive subject position to take up than non-motherhood to gain social power. 2.2.4. Resistance Feminist poststructuralism views the individual as agentic, able to choose between discourses and construct new possibilities (Davies & Gannon, 2005). While the discourses that are available at any given time and place limit the subject positions that speakers can take up, they are also able to choose between discourses, resist discourses, and create new meanings from the clash between multiple, contradictory discourses (Gavey, 1989; Weedon, 1996). It is in this space of contradiction that new discourses can emerge. By disrupting binaries and highlighting the norms and the way in which language and discourse construct them, feminist poststructuralism opens up possibilities for being and acting otherwise (Davies & Gannon, 2005; Gavey, 2011). For example, by making visible pronatalist discourse and its construction of motherhood as mandatory, feminist poststructuralism reduces its power, opening this up for question and allowing for new discourse and subject positions to emerge for women to take up. Discourses therefore enable action and resistance to dominant norms and, in this way, individuals can construct their own meanings, realities, and subjectivities, positioning themselves within various discourses. This may include identifying and conforming with the dominant discourse, or resisting, rejecting, and challenging and, therefore, resisting power (Gavey, 1989; Weedon, 1996). It is important to note that this resistance may come at a social cost, and individuals may be limited in terms of where and how they may employ alternative or resistant discourses depending on their level of power and privilege. 34 2.2.2. Reproductive Justice theory The reproductive justice framework is a feminist theory that is, like feminist poststructuralism, fundamentally about power (Morison, 2023). Reproductive justice not only acknowledges the right to have or not to have children, but also illuminates the complex ways intersecting identity factors and socio-cultural context impact the reproductive lives of women and other marginalised people (Ross & Solinger, 2017). The framework comes from Black feminist critiques of traditional mainstream (white) feminism’s assumption that women are a single, homogenous group with identical concerns (Eaton & Stephens, 2020; Morison, 2021). Rather, reproductive justice theory challenges gender essentialism and the notion that there are universal women’s issues (Morison, 2021; Ross, 2017). According to Ross (2017), reproductive justice theory captures the diversity of experiences that different women have as a result of reproductive privilege or oppression. Therefore, reproductive justice theory takes the feminist poststructuralist exploration of power further, recognising that not everyone is oppressed in the same way and that interconnected oppressions shape the reproductive choices available to different people (Eaton & Stephens, 2020; Morison, 2021; Ross & Solinger, 2017). Importantly, the theory situates reproductive decisions within gendered power dynamics and the socio-cultural contexts in which they occur (Morison, 2021, 2023). That is, reproductive decisions do not occur within a vacuum, but are influenced by the dominant discourses and power structures of the particular society or group to which the person belongs. The concept of intersectionality is used to show how intersecting oppressions, such as gender, race, age, and sexual orientation, enable or restrict women’s ability to make reproductive decisions (Crenshaw, 1989; Eaton & Stephens, 2020; Ross, 2017). This view allows a more nuanced exploration of gendered power relations which encompass multiple identity factors and oppressions. For example, coercive pronatalist discourse exercises power over women, alongside other dominant discourses, simultaneously encouraging socially privileged women to reproduce and discouraging women of colour, or women considered too young or too poor from reproducing, sometimes even through coercive means such as imposed long-acting contraceptives or sterilisation (Morison, 2021; Ross, 2017). By dictating who should (and should not) have children, dominant discourses and taken- for-granted norms govern people’s reproductive lives (Ross, 2017). Reproductive justice theory 35 therefore highlights the role of reproductive oppression as a form of social control, governing women’s bodies and reproductive decisions (Morison, 2021; Parker et al., 2019; Ross, 2017). Foregrounding power and oppression, a reproductive justice perspective also necessitates an exploration of the role those in power play and their obligation to create a safe environment for all women to make the choices that suit them. In attending to intersecting reproductive oppressions, reproductive justice theory also calls for centring marginalised women’s voices (Ross, 2017). In centring marginalised voices, multiple oppressions can be explored, exposing social privilege that may otherwise go unseen (Luna & Luker, 2013). For example, in exploring voluntary childlessness through mainstream discourses of choice, researchers have largely failed to account for the various ways women’s reproductive choices are restricted and regulated. If marginalised women are centred in the research, we can expose how one’s level of social privilege impacts how they are oppressed. However, the reproductive justice framework also applies beyond marginalised populations, highlighting the complex nature of oppression to explore how women are oppressed in different ways. In necessitating an intersectional view and the inclusion of marginalised populations, reproductive justice makes room for a more nuanced, complex, complete, and critical view of the reproductive issues affecting women, and the power relations and oppressions that underpin them (Morison, 2021). Taking a reproductive justice approach highlights diversity in a way that is uncommon within voluntary childlessness or childfree research; a subject that has often been steeped in choice rhetoric and framed socially privileged women’s issues as universal, with a predominantly white, middle-class, heterosexual voice implied as speaking for “all” women. The framework adds the nuance required to adequately explore the diversity of older, childfree women’s experiences through a feminist poststructuralist lens. When used alongside a feminist poststructuralist lens, pronatalist and other oppressive discourses can be illuminated (Parker et al., 2019). Reproductive justice highlights these contradictory discourses and associated gendered power relations as they apply to reproduction, through the lens of intersectionality (Ross, 2017). Without an intersectional view of reproductive oppression, this nuance may be lost, as the focus is on the presumed universal woman’s “right to choose” when or whether to have children. The reproductive justice framework allows me to take the reproductive politics that have shaped older 36 women’s lives beyond choice rhetoric, situating their reproductive decisions within the socio- cultural context within which they occur. 2.3. Method In this section, I outline my method for completing this research, including recruitment, participants, data collection, data analysis, quality assurance, and the appropriateness of this method for my research question and methodology. 2.3.1. Recruitment To gain the depth of understanding and analysis required for qualitative analysis, I aimed to recruit ten to fifteen participants. Recruitment was done via online and offline avenues to reach a diverse range of potential participants. This included internet groups, social media, and online advertising, as well as posters displayed in community spaces such as libraries. Recruitment relied on self-identification regarding gender and having voluntarily opted out of parenthood, whether through explicit choice or in a less direct way. Women ‘past childbearing age’ who have not been mothers and identified themselves as voluntarily childless or childfree or in some other way were the focus of this research. Thus, those who were unable to have children or are involuntarily childless (e.g., due to deferring until they were unable to become pregnant, being estranged from their children, or having had children who are no longer living) were not eligible to take part. In terms of age, I initially sought to recruit women aged 60 years and older, but in the end opted to include some participants over the age of 50 to ensure a diverse range of women were included. Previous research, as mentioned above, has primarily focused on white, heterosexual, married, middle-class women who are primarily encouraged to reproduce (Morison et al., 2016; Shapiro, 2014). To avoid contributing to the pronatalist assumption that only certain women are fit to reproduce, I aimed to include a diverse range of older, childfree women. All efforts were made to encourage diversity in participant selection by recruiting through multiple avenues to include queer women, Māori women, women of different relationship statuses, as well as women from other ethnic groups and different socioeconomic classes and backgrounds. Recruitment avenues included Māori and Pasifika groups where possible and used inclusive language (e.g., calling for wāhine who have chosen not to have children). I also made the decision to reveal my 37 identity as Pākehā-Māori, naming my iwi (tribe), and as bisexual to ensure people from diverse backgrounds understood where I was coming from in my approach. 2.3.2. Participants My research included fifteen older women from a variety of different locations across Aotearoa New Zealand, including cities and small towns. Their characteristics are summarised in Table 1 below. Table 1. Participants Pseudonym Age Ethnicity Sexuality Relationship Status Anne 69 Pākehā Heterosexual Partnered (married) Beverly 70 Pākehā Heterosexual Partnered (de facto) Christine 70 British Heterosexual Partnered (married) Dawn 61 Pākehā Heterosexual Partnered (de facto) Dette 66 Pākehā-British Heterosexual Partnered (married) Donna 68 Pākehā Lesbian Partnered (married) Harriet 61 Pākehā-Scottish Heterosexual Single Heather 65 Pākehā Heterosexual Single Jill 71 Pākehā Heterosexual Single Jan 66 Pākehā Heterosexual Partnered (married) Julie 50 Chinese Heterosexual Single Laura 52 Pākehā-Māori Bisexual Partnered (de facto) Linda 51 Chinese Heterosexual Single Renee 63 British Heterosexual Partnered (de facto) Toni 60 Arab American Asexual/ aromantic Single Due to the gendered nature of voluntary childlessness, this study includes cisgender women who were biologically capable of getting pregnant and most likely to be affected by the motherhood mandate. Owing to this, and because there is a lack of research on this topic in Aotearoa New Zealand, I focus on these women’s experiences while acknowledging that voluntary childlessness affects other individuals, who may or may not be presumed to be pregnancy capable. However, the need for further research including men and all genders to better understand the diversity of voluntarily childless experiences is considered (see Chapter Four). All participants were between the ages of 50 and 71 years old, as I intended to illuminate the perspectives of childfree women in later life whose voices are largely missing from the 38 research. Of these women, 11 were European/Pākehā (one of whom advised she is of Pākehā- Māori descent but identifies as Pākehā), 2 Chinese, 1 Arab American, and one Pākehā-Māori. 6 of my participants were single/never married, while 9 were either in long term committed partnerships (de facto or legally married). Most of my participants were heterosexual (11); 1 was bisexual, 1 was lesbian, and 1 identified as asexual/aromantic (previously heterosexual). This larger number of White/Pākehā and heterosexual participants can be explained by the greater pronatalist pressure on these women as ideal mothers compared to low-income women or women of colour (Lynch et al., 2018; Morison et al., 2016; Shapiro, 2014). Based on my discussions, my participants came from varying socioeconomic backgrounds and statuses, however, all participants had obtained some form of higher education (e.g., a diploma, undergraduate, or postgraduate degree), reflecting the trend for voluntarily childless women to be more likely to be highly educated (Boddington & Didham, 2009). 2.3.3. Data Collection Qualitative data was gathered through one-on-one interviews to explore stigma management and meaning making through talk. Interviews were conducted via video call or telephone, which was anticipated to suit a diverse range of individuals. Given the age of participants and the global pandemic creating the risk of potential COVID-19 risks and restrictions, this offered a safer, but now-familiar, means through which to communicate, allowing for as close to the face-to-face experience as possible (Lupton, 2020). Video calls and telephone interviews also offered ease and flexibility of scheduling, while allowing the participant to choose their own private space in which to talk (Hanna & Mwale, 2017). Additionally, video and telephone interviews were not geographically restricted, offering a broader sample of participants throughout Aotearoa New Zealand (Hanna & Mwale, 2017). Participants came from various cities and towns, from Oamaru to central Auckland. Advertisement for the study invited participants to express their interest by phone or email, as was most comfortable for them, to avoid excluding people who did not know how to use email. Participants were then scheduled for an introductory phone call to learn more about them, discuss the study, and answer any questions. They were advised that this was simply an introduction, with no obligation to participate in the study. At the end of the call, their interest in participating in the study was gauged, and, if they confirmed their interest, informed consent was gained (see 39 Appendix A and B). Participants chose either a telephone or video interview based on the platform that made them most comfortable. The participants were interviewed using a semi-structured, participant-led interview approach, as I aimed to gain insight into how these women use discourse to make sense of the motherhood mandate, negotiate stigma, and construct their womanhood without motherhood. I asked open-ended questions surrounding their experience of ‘voluntary childlessness’ throughout their lives. Interviews were recorded using a recording device for telephone calls or pressing record on the video call, with participants advised of the recording and audio storage process, and informed consent gained prior (as per Appendix A and B). A koha (gift) was provided after the interview to thank participants for their time in the form of an online voucher to the value of $30. 2.3.4. Data Analysis Critical Discursive Psychology offers a method of discourse analysis appropriate for my methodological framework in that it offers a means of analysis focused on power, context, intersectionality, and social justice (Morison, 2023). Critical Discursive Psychology offers a means through which to explore power as constructive in creating the gendered norms that govern and place the individual within a social hierarchy (Locke & Budds, 2020). This allows for an exploration of the motherhood mandate through the lens of power and governance over women’s reproductive decisions. Based on the approach detailed by Locke and Budds (2020), my research topic was grounded in a critical discursive psychology framework by ensuring an open research question that focused on participants use of language as social action in taking up or resisting different subjectivities offered by discourse (Locke & Budds, 2020). Therefore, it is a fitting methodology through which to explore the identity work required to negotiate the stigma attached to older, voluntarily childless women’s identities, and how they position themselves in the discourse. Additionally, interviews were semi-structured to allow participants and researcher to co-produce knowledge through conversation (Locke & Budds, 2020). After collecting the data, I transcribed my interviews with participants verbatim, using minimal transcription notations other than noting pauses, and significant features such as laughter or raised volume, as suggested by Locke and Budds (2020). Analysis focused on the full interview to examine how participants construct their 40 identities through discourse, without significant intervention from myself as the researcher (see Appendix C for the interview guid