“为什么在这里我们可以成为一个家庭,而在那里我们不能?”更广泛的社会制度框架如何塑造LGB育儿体验

Q3 Social Sciences
Tanja Vučković Juroš
{"title":"“为什么在这里我们可以成为一个家庭,而在那里我们不能?”更广泛的社会制度框架如何塑造LGB育儿体验","authors":"Tanja Vučković Juroš","doi":"10.5613/rzs.49.2.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The legal status and social acceptance of same-sex partners’ families vary to an astonishing degree, even within the European Union (EU). These differences are sharply reflected in the lives of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) migrants from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) residing in countries such as Belgium or the Netherlands, where same-sex partners can marry, access adoption and assisted reproductive technologies (ART) services, and acquire legal co-parenting rights. For this group, every visit to a CEE country of origin with a constitutional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, with limited or no access to adoption services, nor to ART or co-parenting rights, highlights the societal and institutional vulnerability of their families. Based on biographical narrative interviews (BNIM) with six LGB migrants from selected CEE countries of origin, raising children with a same-sex partner in Belgium or the Netherlands, this study analyses how differences in wider socio-institutional frameworks shape experiences of LGB parents relating to the formation, display, recognition and acceptance of their families. The findings highlight how the restrictive legal and institutional frameworks not only exclude LGB individuals from full citizenship, but also provide support for the individual-level discrimination of non-heterosexual families. In contrast, inclusive frameworks allow LGB individuals to realize life and family trajectories already accessible to others in society, while also discouraging the expression of individual prejudice. Therefore, the study concludes that the only way to ensure full equality and to protect LGB individuals and their children from stigmatization is to create a fully inclusive socio-institutional framework for non-heterosexual families in which individual prejudice is no longer supported.","PeriodicalId":39535,"journal":{"name":"Revija za Sociologiju","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5613/rzs.49.2.4","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Why is it that here we can be a family, and there we cannot?” How Wider Socio-Institutional Frameworks Shape Experiences of LGB Parenting\",\"authors\":\"Tanja Vučković Juroš\",\"doi\":\"10.5613/rzs.49.2.4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The legal status and social acceptance of same-sex partners’ families vary to an astonishing degree, even within the European Union (EU). These differences are sharply reflected in the lives of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) migrants from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) residing in countries such as Belgium or the Netherlands, where same-sex partners can marry, access adoption and assisted reproductive technologies (ART) services, and acquire legal co-parenting rights. For this group, every visit to a CEE country of origin with a constitutional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, with limited or no access to adoption services, nor to ART or co-parenting rights, highlights the societal and institutional vulnerability of their families. Based on biographical narrative interviews (BNIM) with six LGB migrants from selected CEE countries of origin, raising children with a same-sex partner in Belgium or the Netherlands, this study analyses how differences in wider socio-institutional frameworks shape experiences of LGB parents relating to the formation, display, recognition and acceptance of their families. The findings highlight how the restrictive legal and institutional frameworks not only exclude LGB individuals from full citizenship, but also provide support for the individual-level discrimination of non-heterosexual families. In contrast, inclusive frameworks allow LGB individuals to realize life and family trajectories already accessible to others in society, while also discouraging the expression of individual prejudice. Therefore, the study concludes that the only way to ensure full equality and to protect LGB individuals and their children from stigmatization is to create a fully inclusive socio-institutional framework for non-heterosexual families in which individual prejudice is no longer supported.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39535,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revija za Sociologiju\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5613/rzs.49.2.4\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revija za Sociologiju\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5613/rzs.49.2.4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revija za Sociologiju","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5613/rzs.49.2.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

同性伴侣家庭的法律地位和社会接受程度差异很大,甚至在欧盟内部也是如此。这些差异在居住在比利时或荷兰等国的中欧和东欧女同性恋、男同性恋和双性恋移民的生活中得到了尖锐的反映,在这些国家,同性伴侣可以结婚、获得收养和辅助生殖技术服务,并获得合法的共同养育权。对这一群体来说,每一次访问一个中东欧原籍国,宪法都将婚姻定义为男女结合,获得收养服务的机会有限或根本没有,也没有接受抗逆转录病毒疗法或共同养育子女的权利,这都突显了他们家庭的社会和制度脆弱性。本研究基于对来自选定的中东欧原籍国的六名LGB移民的传记叙事访谈(BNIM),他们在比利时或荷兰与同性伴侣一起抚养孩子,分析了更广泛的社会制度框架中的差异如何影响LGB父母在组建、展示、认可和接受家庭方面的经历。研究结果强调,限制性的法律和制度框架不仅将LGB个人排除在正式公民身份之外,而且为非异性恋家庭的个人层面歧视提供了支持。相比之下,包容性框架允许LGB个人实现社会中其他人已经可以获得的生活和家庭轨迹,同时也阻止个人偏见的表达。因此,该研究得出结论,确保完全平等并保护LGB个人及其子女免受污名化的唯一途径是为不再支持个人偏见的非异性恋家庭创建一个完全包容的社会制度框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“Why is it that here we can be a family, and there we cannot?” How Wider Socio-Institutional Frameworks Shape Experiences of LGB Parenting
The legal status and social acceptance of same-sex partners’ families vary to an astonishing degree, even within the European Union (EU). These differences are sharply reflected in the lives of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) migrants from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) residing in countries such as Belgium or the Netherlands, where same-sex partners can marry, access adoption and assisted reproductive technologies (ART) services, and acquire legal co-parenting rights. For this group, every visit to a CEE country of origin with a constitutional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, with limited or no access to adoption services, nor to ART or co-parenting rights, highlights the societal and institutional vulnerability of their families. Based on biographical narrative interviews (BNIM) with six LGB migrants from selected CEE countries of origin, raising children with a same-sex partner in Belgium or the Netherlands, this study analyses how differences in wider socio-institutional frameworks shape experiences of LGB parents relating to the formation, display, recognition and acceptance of their families. The findings highlight how the restrictive legal and institutional frameworks not only exclude LGB individuals from full citizenship, but also provide support for the individual-level discrimination of non-heterosexual families. In contrast, inclusive frameworks allow LGB individuals to realize life and family trajectories already accessible to others in society, while also discouraging the expression of individual prejudice. Therefore, the study concludes that the only way to ensure full equality and to protect LGB individuals and their children from stigmatization is to create a fully inclusive socio-institutional framework for non-heterosexual families in which individual prejudice is no longer supported.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Revija za Sociologiju
Revija za Sociologiju Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信