from Parenting & Family
This APA-published study purports to offer evidence that lesbians are equal or superior to heterosexual parents. A closer reading of the evidence, however, reveals the folly of such an assumption.
By: James E. Phelan, Ph.D., LCSW, BCD
Study Summary
This study examined the relationship between parental characteristics and some aspects of child-rearing. The researchers examined basic child adjustment in planned Dutch lesbian-parent families (two-mother families in which the child was born to the lesbian relationship primarily through insemination) and Dutch heterosexual-parent families.
Sampling And Measuring
The sample consisted of 100 planned Dutch lesbian-parent families and 100 Dutch heterosexual-parent families. The heterosexual sample was drawn from the registers of two Dutch cities. The children in question were roughly six years old. The lesbian-parent sample was drawn from a donor insemination service; an interest group for gay and lesbian parents; from "various individuals with expertise in the area of gay and lesbian parenting" (p. 39), and by an advertisement in a lesbian magazine.
The authors state that their sampling was superior to previous studies because it used several methods (p. 39) versus a single method. Nevertheless, both samples were by no means random, nor could they be generalized to those living in the United States or elsewhere, given variances in culture.
The researchers used three methods of collecting data: questionnaires, observations, and diaries. The instruments used gathered data about child adjustment, parental characteristics, and child-rearing.
Child adjustment was assessed on only one scale, the 108-item Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). Parental characteristics measured were: division of work and family tasks, satisfaction with the partner as a coparent, intensity of the desire to have a child, child-rearing goals, and parental justification.
Child Adjustment
The results revealed that on the child adjustment scale there was no difference between the two groups. The authors concluded, therefore, that child adjustment was not associated with family type.
Parental Characteristics
The results for parental characteristics found that the lesbians seemed more satisfied with their partner as a coparent than heterosexuals were, and lesbian mothers had a stronger desire to have children, but traditional child-rearing goals were less important to them. The authors said that the fact that the division of family tasks and childcare activities "seemed to be more equal in lesbian-parent families" (p. 38), explained why the lesbians seemed more satisfied with their partner as a coparent than heterosexual mothers were.
As far as the desire for children being higher among lesbian biological mothers (LBMs), the authors said this was most likely the case since lesbian couples have to go through a long and difficult process before pregnancy is achieved.
One thing the study did not address-- the lesbian families spent more time on childcare and household tasks, and spent fewer hours on employment outside the home, but the authors did not say how the samples could then be matched on economical status. This issue certainly needed to be addressed. Naturally, a partner is going to be more satisfied with their coparent if that partner is working outside the home less and helping more domestically inside the home. This begged the question, in the grand scheme of things, whether this was really a parenting characteristic, or actually an economic characteristic. Even while both subgroups were alleged to be matched on education levels, favoring the more highly educated side, the researchers failed to address the fact that heterosexual fathers spent far more time outside the home than lesbian parents, neglecting to say how this could have weighed in on the findings.
One thing that was significant among lesbian parents and not heterosexual parents was that LBMs (lesbian biological mothers) felt they had to defend their positions as parents, and lesbian social mothers (LSMs) (i.e., non-biological mothers) had to justify their quality of parenthood more often than heterosexual fathers (HFs). For this, the researchers blamed society, which is the trend for research which is designed to take a pro-homosexual position. They said, "The fact that lesbian social mothers feel the need to justify the quality of their parenthood is probably a result of the societal pressure to be visible as a mother that these mothers feel" (p. 46).
Child-rearing
The results revealed that in child rearing lesbian parents differed in some ways from heterosexual parents on some parental characteristic scales.
LSMs scored higher in concern and emotional investment in their children than HFs. LSMs scored lower in power assertion, while HFs scored higher in power assertion. LSMs scored lower in structure and limit setting with children than did HFs.
LSMs scored lower in power assertion than heterosexual mothers (HMs). HMs scored higher in having a more supportive presence in child-rearing than LSMs.
LBMs scored higher in emotional involvement in child-rearing than HMs. However, HMs scored higher in structure and limit setting. When LBMs and LSMs were compared, it was found that LBMs had scored higher on childcare and structure and limit setting than LSMs. The researchers explained that "the absence of a genetic tie with the child might explain these differences" (p. 46).
LBMs scored lower in power assertion while HFs scored higher on power assertion. LBMs compared to HFs scored higher on emotional involvement in child-rearing, supportive presence, and respect for their child's autonomy.
Limitations of the Study
As said earlier, both samples were limited not only because they were Dutch, but because they were not random samples. Thus, the findings cannot be generalized to those living in the United States, or elsewhere, given variances in culture.
Even though the sample of lesbian parents was said to be "superior," that is coming from more than one source, the sources in and of themselves were limited. The comparison group of heterosexual parents was drawn only from two geographic centers.
The study relied on self-report, and since lesbians have more reasons to protect their social image as parents, it seems logical to conclude that they would answer more favorably to questions about parenting.
Only one survey was offered to measure child adjustment, thus the data is limited. Also, the children were only six years old; this merely indicates childhood adjustment across a very short duration of the life span.
Final Discussion
As the study showed, it is important for children to see that parents are satisfied with each other as coparents. Fathers in heterosexual families seem to be at a disadvantage to being looked at as satisfactory as a coparent. This is due to their lessened ability to be available for child-rearing and household tasks because of their working more hours outside the home than do lesbian parents. Why the heterosexual father sample spent more time outside the home for work purposes than the lesbian parent samples--and yet the two groups still matched on economical status--remains a mystery.
As noted earlier, in this study, LBMs scored higher in emotional involvement in child- rearing than HMs. However, HMs scored higher in structure and limit setting. However, when LBMs and LSMs were compared, it was found that LBMs had scored higher on childcare and structure and limit setting than LSMs. The researchers explained that "the absence of a genetic tie with the child might explain these differences" (p. 46). This is why the presence of both a biological father and mother is of utmost significant to a child's well-being. In this regard, they get the supportive presence in child-rearing from the HM, and the power assertion, structure, and limit setting from the HF, therefore a complementary balance.
When all variables have been considered, it has been found that children are indeed best served when reared in a home with a married mother and father (Byrd, 2004). As empirical research has shown, the inherent structure of a homosexual household deprives a child of the needed benefits that only a heterosexual family can provide (Rekers, 2005). There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents (Moore, Jekielek, & Emig, 2002)
Finally, it begs the question as to why a Dutch study was given preference in an American journal, particularly one published by the American Psychological Association (APA). Given the political climate of the APA, the findings would seem to fit their agenda, which favors gay and lesbian partnering, as well as gay and lesbian parental rights.
Evidence of this lies in the fact that the APA's Committee on Legal Issues filed eight amicus curiae briefs in one year and out of the eight, five of them dealt with legitimizing homosexual rights either though same-sex couples' rights or child-care issues (APA, 2005).
The sad thing about this study is how it could be misused. I can see how interpretations by pro-gay advocates will point out that not only did the children in the study show no differences in adjustment, but that on some levels, the lesbian parents looked even more favorable than heterosexuals (e.g., they were found to have more desire to have the child, they reported more satisfaction with their coparent, and LSMs were said to be more active in child-rearing, although limited in structure).
However, these findings actually reveal little about lesbian parenting when you consider the gross limits of the study, the disadvantages of fathers who work outside the home compared to lesbian parents, and the lesbians' obvious political motives to defend their positions as parents which were, indeed, transparent in the findings.
References
American Psychological Association (APA) (2005). Annual Report. Washington, DC: Author.
Bos, H. M. W., van Balen, F, & van den Boom, D. C., (2007). Adjustment and Parenting in Lesbian-Parent Families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(1), 38-48.
Byrd, A. D. (2004). Gender complementarity and child-rearing: When tradition and science agree. Journal of Law and Family Studies, 6(2), 213-235.
Moore, Kristin A., Jekielek, S.M., & Emig, C., (2002, June). Marriage from a Child's Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do About It? Child Trends Research Brief p. 6.
Rekers, G. A. (2005). An empirically supported rational basis for prohibiting adoption, foster parenting, and contested child custody by any person residing in a household that includes a homosexually-behaving member. St. Thomas Law Review, 18, 325-424.