Radio Review: Sideways – Broody men

The contention of this episode of Sideways, a BBC Radio 4 production that showcases stories that encourage seeing the world differently, is simple: men get broody, too. To discuss the less socially accepted notion that men often long to be parents just as much as women do, narrator Matthew Syed introduces Simon Burrell, a single gay man who had a baby via surrogacy in his early 50s, alongside Dr Robin Hadley, an expert in men's childlessness, and Dr Anna Machin, an evolutionary anthropologist. 

For Simon, the process of becoming a father was complicated and delayed by discrimination and social norms around what parenthood should look like. As a young gay man growing up in the homophobic culture of the 90s and 2000s, he encountered media narratives suggested that gay people were inherently dangerous for children to be around. This led him to bury his broodiness for a long time. In his 50s, however, he decided he needed to become a father to find meaning in his life. Cultural values have certainly shifted since then, but Simon still faced challenges as a single man (raising issues around the transference of legal parenthood), and an older man (which carries both cultural and, as Dr Hadley notes, biological implications). 

It is mentioned, extremely briefly, that commercial surrogacy is illegal in the UK – hence why Simon had to pursue the expensive California route. The programme does not go further into the complicated and often controversial world of surrogacy, and I think that's actually a detriment to the programme, despite it not being its main focus. In fact, the lack of conversation around the surrogacy process, and Simon's unnamed surrogate, is weirdly – and unintentionally, I'm sure – dehumanising. The surrogate becomes almost invisible, positioned less as a person than as a machine: you put (an enormous amount of) money in and a baby pops out. 

Something interesting I think the programme brought to the fore was the way that male feelings around childlessness are explored – in that they reflect more deeply how men are able, or unable, to express their emotions. Simon describes tamping down his longing to be a father for decades, leaving him empty and unfulfilled. Dr Hadley recounts having such 'high levels of broodiness' that he became so jealous of a colleague his age who'd become a father, he was unable to face him and cut him off entirely. Dr Machin also points out that first time fathers are often as nervous as first time mothers to become parents, which is something not often considered in conversations about pregnancy and birth. In this way, this programme might spark more honest conversations between men about their feelings around fatherhood or childlessness.

Another thing that really struck me was the programme's underlying focus on what is natural. While it was never explicitly stated, about the narrative seemed to revolve around biological fatherhood. Simon apparently never considered adoption, or fostering. Must a child be biologically yours to provide 'meaning' or fulfilment? Many fathers through adoption, fostering, or blended families, would surely find this an outrageous take. 

Questions of naturalness also arise around sexuality and fatherhood. Syed reflected on Simon's willingness to go to great lengths to have a child, stressing that 'being a parent [...] is a natural feeling'. There's a discussion about how cis men and women can conceive children naturally across a fairly wide age range, though outside a certain window there may be risks to the child. Ironically, the framing plays into the same cultural stereotypes of acceptable parenting that Simon's story challenges. And if the programme is covering unconventional fatherhood – why not a passing mention of other forms of biological parenthood – for example, trans men who give birth? Is that not natural too? Ultimately, the background theme of what was natural irked me. Surely whether a family is 'natural' is immaterial, as long as it is loving? 

The evolutionary discussion with Dr Machin also struck me as oddly heterosexual in focus. What do I mean by this? In pushing back against the stereotype of the inept father, Dr Machin explains that humans are among the five percent of mammals in which fathers are actively involved in raising offspring, largely due to the extreme dependency of human babies, really hammering home that this is natural to us. This, she argues, means fathers are just as biologically and psychologically primed to be parents as mothers, and play a specific role in introducing the child to the world beyond family and to develop resilience. Which is great, if we're talking about a heterosexual couple. Dr Machin did address concerns from single parents, but the lack of mention of same-sex couples seemed really odd considering the programme centres on a gay man's yearning for fatherhood. 

Simon now has a five-year-old son and has found his 'meaning'. The programme ends with the comment that many men long to be fathers 'just because it's meaningful for a man to love, nurture and parent a child in and of itself'. Personally, I felt this was a little saccharine (not being broody myself, I can only listen to so many babies gurgling in the background before it becomes too much). I also found the programme a little reductive in places, particularly the cisheteronormativity framing of fatherhood and its focus on biological children were a little jarring.  

But perhaps my most important point of contention with this programme is the introduction of the term baby lust, to mean an 'intense, overwhelming desire to have a child'. I don't think I've had a more visceral, negative reaction to a phrase in my life, outside of the time I heard a young person use the term 'moist' to mean lame or uncool. Can we please all agree to stick with 'broody', and if we must, perhaps preface it with 'very'?