Making Babies, Making Parents

‘The Jeremy Kyle Show’ was a highly problematic show that exploited stereotypes of the working class to make entertainment. Within the show, paternity was intrinsically tied to the sexual relationship with the mother, with much of the dramatization focusing on a ‘DNA’ segment to discover a potential father. Throughout this, the sexual relationships of the potential father with the mother were scrutinised to interrogate the certainty of the father. This interrogative segment of the show, highlighted Strathern’s argument in which, ‘fatherhood exists in so far as his connection with the mother is known to exist’ (Strathern, 2011, 255), constructing fatherhood as an object of knowledge (rather than a natural state) which is intrinsically tied to the mother who is acknowledged through pregnancy and birth. I found it highly interesting that on this show, the outcome of the DNA test completely transformed the personhood of the potential father, as the parental status defined such a person. A guest may begin uncertain of his parental status and leave transformed into a ‘father’, highlighting the powerful and transformative nature of parental constructions. I feel that ‘The Jeremy Kyle Show’ made a spectacle of fatherhood identities that, (similarly to Hooks’ understanding of the infamous film, ‘Paris is Burning’) was meant, ‘for the entertainment of those presumed to be on the outside of this experience looking in’ (Hooks, 2014, 152). This exploited working class stereotypes for dramatization, with the intended audience being those who were able to watch and judge the ‘irresponsible’ parents whose reproduction was set up as a spectacle, rather than being deemed through the eyes of desirability and respectability.

Similarly, to the above point, this clip highlight’s reproductive desirability and respectability, looking at gay fathers here, rather than working class heterosexual families. As this situation was featured on a popular news channel, this may be viewed as a ‘spectacle’ for entertainment, however, I feel that this is respectful and condemns this horrific discrimination. Here, the constructive nature of parents through reproduction is noted, with such labels defining people’s identities, being essential to broader issues of citizenship and societal acceptance. Unlike above where fatherhood was recognised through biological tests and potential sexual relationships with a ‘natural’ mother, here, fatherhood is problematically not recognised as decisively. The son of two fathers’ details how his teacher said that, ‘there is something wrong with them (the gay fathers, adopting a child)’ (1:30-1:35), which, (besides from being immensely homophobic) highlights dominant heteronormative expectations of Western society; illustrating themes of acceptability within such restrictive frameworks. As Goodfellow notes, often gay fathers who have adopted children, ‘draw on and use the… concepts often thought hostile to… queer forms of social life’ (Goodfellow, 2015, 3), as through this, fathers are able to produce ‘desirable’ forms of heteronormative reproduction, allowing them to create ‘ideal’ kinship ties. These deeply-engrained heteronormative ‘ideals’ I find angering for gay families, as the pressure to conform to a reproductive expectation that is restrictive and discriminatory should not be the given way towards feeling societal acceptance.