Focus on Women: Women's Studies

Back to Focus on Women: Women's Studies page

FEATURED WORK A Comparison of Children Raised in Heterosexual Households as Opposed to Lesbian Households, and Potential Sources of Difference by Elizabeth Creech - Warren Wilson College

Warren Wilson College Gender and Women Studies Program

Part of a series. Read the rest of the series here.

Elizabeth Creech is a first year student majoring in Environmental Studies. She is also in the Introduction to Gender and Women's Studies program with Laura Vance, Ph.D, May, 2009.

According to the 2000 census, 594,000 of all American households are headed by same-sex partners, with 27 percent of these fostering children (Meezan and Rauch 2005). Such estimates are the cause of joy for some, while others view them with contempt and fear. The average estimates suggest that 6 percent to 7 percent of all women are lesbian (Bozett and Green 1991), and a rising number of these women are choosing to raise families in lesbian households. Though it is true that two women are not biologically able to produce a child together (as is often easily the case in heterosexual couples), lesbian partners are increasingly able to create a “biological loophole” through means such as adoption and donor insemination (Hollinger 1993). It is easy to pinpoint the difference between how a child is conceived in a heterosexual household (as a product of both parents) as opposed to in a lesbian household (as a product of either one parent with a donor or through adoption), but is this the only distinction? How do children raised in dual-parent lesbian households compare to those raised in dual-parent heterosexual households? If any differences occur, how can they be explained? Despite the fears of many (though certainly not all) religious groups and conservative Americans, overwhelming research indicates that children raised in lesbian households do not differ greatly from those raised in heterosexual households.

One of the main concerns with same-sex parenting—in fact a leading argument against gay adoption in general—is that children raised in homosexual homes will experience confusion as to their own sexual identity (which is composed of gender identity, gender-role assumptions, and sexual orientation). In order to investigate such claims, Patterson (2000) researches and compares the development of children with lesbian mothers as opposed to those with heterosexual mothers.

Gender identity is definable as a person’s self-identification as either female or male (Patterson 2000). According to current social standards, biological males should identify as male gendered and females as female gendered. This identity is accepted as innate, with little to no variation from early childhood until adulthood. Anti-gay groups often argue that children raised in homosexual households (without both a male and female parent present to present the two distinct genders) will experience confusion as to their own gender identity. To examine this theory, a test was run in which children raised by lesbian mothers were compared to those raised by heterosexual mothers. When asked to draw projective pictures, the great majority of the children drew same-sex figures (indicating normative sexual identity). Of those who did not, only three were found to have possible gender identity confusion—two belonging to heterosexual mothers and one to a lesbian mother (Kirkpatrick, Smith and Roy 1981). There are multiple other instances in which similar tests supported the fact that children of same-sex households do not experience unusual problems of gender identity (with “usual” being defined as those experienced in children from heterosexual households).

Similar to concerns of gender identity confusion are those of gender-role behavioral expectations. These expectations suggest that female children should prefer certain activities (those socially acceptable for girls), and males should prefer others (socially acceptable for boys). In a test of 56 children of lesbian parents and 48 of heterosexual parents, Greene (1986) found no gender-role differences. Girls of both family types chose favorite television shows that were considered “feminine,” and preferred to play with toys that were created for female audiences. Similar results were found in boys choosing more “masculine” toys and television shows, with no disparities between those raised in lesbian households and those raised in heterosexual households.

In general, the only difference noted is that girls raised by lesbian mothers are more likely to be more open in playing with stereotypically “boy” toys along with toys commonly designated for girls, and that boys raised in same-sex households are slightly less aggressive in their interactions among other children (Meezan and Rauch 2005). Though present, these differences are not considered gender-role confusion by normative societal standards (and are actually positive in many ways).

Thirdly, many groups and individuals argue that children who are raised by homosexual parents are more likely than those raised in heterosexual environments to become homosexual themselves. The basis of this belief is that sexual orientation is a result of socialization and is not innate, and that children who would otherwise be heterosexual could inadvertently become homosexual if raised in an environment in which homosexuality were consistently present. Though this is a widespread argument in our society, research indicates that it is not correct. In studying a group of teenagers, half of whom were raised by lesbian mothers and half by heterosexual mothers, Huggins (1989) found that none of the children of lesbians self-identified as homosexual, as opposed to one child of a heterosexual woman who identified as such. Standing alone this test could be considered inconclusive, but multiple replications yield the same results—one’s sexual orientation is not shown to be based on that of one’s parents.

Even with the knowledge that sexual identity is not widely affected by whether a child is raised in a lesbian or heterosexual household, there are multiple other arguments against same-sex parenting. A common concern (present even within the lesbian community) is that children of lesbian or gay couples will experience excessive anxiety due to lack of acceptance by their own peers (Patterson 2000). Everyone who has been in elementary school knows how children may ostracize others based on differences, and the fear is children from same-sex households will be less socially accepted due to homophobia. Later in school, this, combined with the false notion that children of homosexual parents are themselves homosexual, could lead to unfair and inaccurate classification (and bullying based on this classification). Though instances of such misclassification and bullying do occur, there is currently no conclusive datum that suggest that children of lesbian mothers suffer poor peer relations (Golombok and Tasker 1995). School-aged children have been found to choose certain characteristics as means of ostracizing individuals or groups (such as obesity), but children of same-sex families have not been found to suffer based on their parents’ sexual orientation (Patterson 2000).

If not being abused at school or by friends, some fear that children raised in homosexual households will be mistreated (especially sexually) by their parents. In the eyes of many, “lesbian” and “mother” are direct contradictions of one another. Lesbians are socially considered to be narcissistic, driven by desire and pleasure, and generally oversexed (Neophytou 1994). According to current social standards, women are supposed to be gentle, caring, altruistic, and weak—dependant upon men for monetary and physical support. By definition, lesbians are not in partnership with men, and therefore separated from the often popularized social idea of what it means to be “woman”. This causes many to reach the conclusion that lesbians could not possibly be suitable mothers at all, and that their “desire for pleasure” could lead them to sexually abuse children if allowed to have them. Actually, the great majority of adults who sexually abuse others (whether children or adults) are men. Sexual abuse cases involving women are very rare, and lesbian mothers are no more likely than heterosexual mothers to sexually abuse their children (Patterson 2000). Based on this, it could be argued that it is not more likely, but actually less likely that children raised in lesbian households will be sexually abused (in comparison to those in heterosexual households).

Another of the many arguments against same-sex parenting is that children in such situations will not spend as much time with family members as do those of heterosexual households. Upon revealing their sexual orientation, it is common for homosexuals to lose ties with intolerant friends or family members. If a woman came out to her parents as lesbian, for instance, there would be a chance that her relationship with them could be severely undermined. If this woman were to have and raise one or more children with her partner, the chances of them interacting or spending time with grandparents (or possibly aunts and uncles who disagreed with their mother’s homosexuality) could be less than in heterosexual families. Many argue that relationships with familiar elders are a necessary and natural process in childhood development, and that same-sex parenting could detach children from such interactions. Again, Patterson (2000) dispels such notions as not being supported by data. Research indicates that children of lesbian parents spend just as much (in some cases more) time with family members as do those of heterosexual parents. Lesbian and gay men are likely to maintain relationships with parents, siblings, and other members of their biological families (Laird 1998).

Similarly, many suggest that same-sex couples do not/would not adequately introduce children to members of the opposite sex from themselves (the parents). If lesbians were “man-haters” (Neophytou 1994), then it would make sense that they would not want their children interacting with men on a regular basis. In actuality, however, lesbianism and hatred towards men are very rarely related at all. Women identify as lesbian based on their love for and attraction toward women, not their dislike of men. Though it is true that lesbians may not be sexually or emotionally attracted to men, they hardly ever state that their sexual orientation is based on dislike of the male gender. Cases of heterosexual “man-haters” are no more or less common than those of lesbians. Actually, research suggests that same-sex parents make conscious efforts to provide their children with interactions with members of the opposite gender from themselves, and that children raised in such households have sufficient association with both genders (Hare and Richards 1993).

Despite what certain groups might insist, research identifies very few distinctions between children raised in homosexual (lesbian-based) households and those raised in heterosexual households. Essentially, only two differences have been successfully distinguished. Firstly, girls with lesbian mothers may be slightly less gender rigid in play as children, and aspirations as adults, than similar girls raised in heterosexual households. In a study of pre-school children, one group with heterosexual mothers and the other with lesbian mothers, the children of lesbians were both less aggressive and less dominant toward peers than those of heterosexual mothers. As Meezan and Rauch (2005) assert, females raised in same-sex lesbian couples show trends of being less aware of expected gender divisions than females raised by heterosexual couples. Males with lesbian parents are in general slightly less antagonistic than those with heterosexual parents.

Secondly, children of lesbian-headed households, especially females, are reportedly more likely to be open-minded towards sexual orientation (Meezan and Rauch 2005). Though results show that homosexual households do not produce homosexual children at an unusually high rate (in comparison to that of heterosexual households) (Patterson 2000), research indicates that females raised by lesbian parents are more likely to consider their own sexuality before decidedly asserting themselves as heterosexual. The same pattern is seen in males raised in same-sex households. Also, studies performed by Meezan and Rauch (2005) conclude that females with lesbian mothers are more likely to be accepting of friends and peers who self-identify with non-heterosexual sexualities.

If these subtle (and potentially positive) differences exist between children of lesbian households and those of heterosexual households, what are their origins? Simply put, what causes girls raised by lesbians to be more open-minded than those with heterosexual parents, as well as more likely to reject certain ideas of female gender-roles? What causes boys with lesbian parents to be less aggressive and domineering than those who grow up in heterosexual households? Though there are multiple possible explanations, at least one of the major ones seems to rest in the actual structure and function of heterosexual relationships as opposed to lesbian relationships. The whole basis of fearing same-sex parenting is founded on the assumption that children are products of their parents. By breaking down the differences in heterosexual-headed and lesbian-headed households, a logical conclusion can be deduced as to why the differences in children of such households occur in the first place.

No matter what type (heterosexual-headed or homosexual-headed), the family unit helps to construct a child’s idea of the larger social or community unit in which she or he lives (Lee and Shaw 2009). The family introduces children to ideas of social gender divisions, divisions of labor—essentially the social distinctions between “male” and “female.” A traditional family is considered to be heterosexual-headed, with the father being the “breadwinner” and the mother the caretaker. In such a structure, women are expected to do most of the housework, while men go into the workforce to earn money to support themselves, their wives, and their children. This structure has led to deeply ingrained beliefs in many Americans as to how work should be divided, with some tasks seeming obviously “feminine” and some obviously “masculine.”

In Paradoxes of Gender, Lorber (1994) presents interesting findings on this idea of labor division, particularly within the household. In a study of roommates in single-gendered households, work is generally divided equally without any set ideas of gender roles. Heterosexual roommates of the same gender divide domestic tasks between themselves, not considering amount of time spent working outside of the household in this division. If an opposite-gendered partner is introduced, however, conventional methods of work assignment often occur. Essentially, the woman is expected to cook, clean, do laundry, and (if applicable) care for children. The man takes out the trash, mows the lawn, works on the car, and performs “fix-it” tasks in the home as the need arises. As in the study involving roommates, the same patterns are present in a majority of heterosexual familiar households in the United States.

Even when in these relationships women work outside of the household, they still generally also do the majority of the housework. As Greenstein (2000) shows, wives perform a much larger percentage of household tasks than their male partners, even in instances in which the wives earn more money than their husbands, or their husbands are unemployed. In a survey conducted in 2000 of 2,912 married couples, the majority of which were white non-Hispanic and middle class, wives reportedly spent an average of 37.31 hours per week on housework. This is more than double the 16.67 hours reported by their husbands. Though such data cannot definitively be assumed to represent American couples and households in their entirety, they do provide a good estimate of the amount of time spent doing housework as a function of gender.

Influenced by their surroundings (their families), children are greatly affected by such clear-cut gender divisions in relation to certain roles in households and proper work assignments. In fact, most females first face gender oppression as children in their own homes (Lee and Shaw 2009). By viewing sexism and male privilege in their fathers as related to their mothers, female self-esteem is often lowered at an early age. Male children, on the other hand, can be taught from watching their parents that certain dominant roles are meant for them (and other subordinate roles for women). Many chores stereotypically performed by women are considered by husbands/fathers to be emasculating, and such beliefs are passed from heterosexual males to their children. The University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research recently reported that girls age six through seventeen spend an average of thirty percent more time performing household chores than their equally aged male siblings, yet are less likely than boys to be paid for their endeavors (Lee and Shaw 2009). This places obvious emphasis on the importance of males earning money, suggesting that women’s work is not measured by monetary value and implanting early ideas on women’s values as being related to housework as opposed to paid work. Girls are often expected to clean up after their brothers or fathers, further enforcing the idea that women are to be subjugated by men (while at the same time helping to form superiority complexes in the minds of male siblings). Even as children, males are taught that they should be tough, protective, and somewhat more powerful than similar-aged females. This contributes to aggression and domineering behavior found in boys raised in heterosexual households.

Unlike heterosexual-headed homes, lesbian households rarely display gendered specialization of domestic work (Dunne 2000). Studies of lesbian couples as compared to heterosexual couples (both with and without children) have shown that lesbian relationships are generally far more egalitarian than heterosexual relationships (Sullivan 1996). Though stereotypes suggest the butch-femme dichotomy most commonly used to portray lesbian couples in the media, the reality of this is fairly rare.

Sullivan (1996) interviewed thirty-four lesbian couples living in the San Francisco Bay Area of California, all of which had children together. Of these couples, twenty-nine identified both parenting and household work as equally shared in their relationships, with no definitive basis upon which labor was to be divided. In instances where one partner was the birth mother (through donor insemination) and one did take on more of the traditional “feminine” responsibilities of child care, she was just as likely to be the comother as she was the birthmother (Hare and Richards 1993). As in the research conducted by Dunne (2000), household labor in lesbian couples was found to be divided by preference as opposed to gender. Many couples divided chores based on personal inclination, how such chores fit into their schedule, or skill level. Some reported that individual members of the couple were responsible for certain tasks; others reported that who had time, was able, or the first to see something that needed to be done was the one to do it. No research indicates set division of labor based on gender roles like those present in heterosexual households (as the butch-femme stereotype for lesbians would suggest).

The equality presented by lesbian parents is reflected in their children. Without a familiar structure that supports sexism, women raised in lesbian-headed households are more likely to follow aspirations of success than those raised in heterosexual households (Meezan and Rauch 2005). Males, on the other hand, are more likely to lack standards of “masculinity” and social dominance over females (as sometimes imposed by the relationship between the heterosexual mother and father), leading to decreased aggression in male children of lesbian households. This is not to say that all females from heterosexual households are less driven than those from lesbian-based households, or that all males are more aggressive. Some heterosexual households are effective in eliminating unfair gender role ideology, and some lesbian households enforce patterns of dominance of one female partner over the other. Still, the main patterns of equality in lesbian-headed households as opposed to heterosexual-headed households are shown to have undeniable impacts on children raised therein.

Due to their traditional roles as housekeepers, many women in heterosexual relationships earn less money than do their male counterparts. Money is a main source of power in relationships—the partner with more money is often the main decision maker for either a couple or an entire family (Sullivan 1996). Without fiscal power, women in heterosexual relationships often have less say in major family decisions such as buying a home, job changes, the education of their children, and where they live. Even when working, women make an average of seventy-six cents to the male dollar, still often rendering them less powerful than their husbands (Lee and Shaw 2009). Again, such patterns of inequality are not so readily seen in lesbian couples.

Just as household work is divided equally in the vast majority of lesbian-headed families, the percentage of families in which both partners work outside the home seems to be higher as well (Sullivan 1996). Even in more traditionally based households in which one partner is the “breadwinner” and the other the stay at home housekeeper or childcare provider, studies in lesbian couples report far less discontent and inequality based on money than in heterosexual couples. When questioned, the majority of lesbian couples (despite possibly varied income levels) report egalitarianism in decision making (Dunne 2000). The same is not true for heterosexual couples, in which women often report dissatisfaction with the level of influence they have on the choices made that affect their families.

As with gender roles in division of household labor, gender differences in outside labor present in heterosexual couples as opposed to lesbian couples seem to contribute to the differences found in children from the two family types. In seeing women with equal power to decision making, girls from lesbian-based families are often more likely to be confident in their own decision making later in life (Meezan and Rauch 2005). Boys and girls with lesbian parents are less likely to witness dominance in decision making, and therefore are not affected in ways similar to those who grow up in heterosexual environments. This helps to explain the reduced competitive aggression in boys from lesbian-headed households—they have no “boss” role model to live up to, and therefore feel less of a need to dominate those around them. Again, this is not to say that all lesbian-headed households are egalitarian, or that all heterosexual-headed households are not.

The final notable difference in children of lesbian parents, higher tendencies towards open-mindedness pertaining to sexual orientation (especially in females), is fairly easily explained. Obviously, children raised in heterosexual households are much more likely to face homophobia than those raised in lesbian-headed households (where homophobia is generally, though not always, non-existent). Children raised in highly accepting heterosexual families are also more likely than those raised in the stereotypical heterosexual family to consider their own sexual orientation, or to befriend/accept those of diverse sexual orientations

In contrast to assertions made by many opponents of same-sex parenting, children raised in lesbian-headed families and heterosexual-headed families have few differences. Children of lesbian households are no more likely to experience confusions of sexual identity than those from heterosexual families, nor are they more likely to be abused by peers or parental figures. Children of lesbian couples have relatively healthy and normal relationships with family members, as well as male members of society. Differences between children of same-sex and heterosexual couples—declined aggression in boys and increased aspirations in girls, as well as open-mindedness to sexual orientation—can often be explained by differences in (or lack of) gender roles as expressed in the two relationship types. Overall results indicate that the causes of these differences are omission of sexism and presence of equality in most lesbian couples, along with open-mindedness and acceptance of diversities.

Works Cited

Bozett, Frederick W. and G. Dorsey Green. 1991. “Lesbian Mothers and Gay Fathers.” Pp. 197-214 in Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, edited by J. C. Gonsiorek and J. D. Weinrich. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Dunne, Gillian A. 2000. “Opting into Motherhood: Lesbians Blurring the Boundaries and Transforming the Meaning of Parenthood and Kinship.”Gender and Society 14:11-35.

Golombok, S. and F. Tasker. 1995. “Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65:203-215.

Green, R., Mandel, J. B., Hotvedt, M. E., Gray, J. and Smith, L. 1986. “Lesbian Mothers and their Children: A Comparison with Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and their Children.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 7:175-181.

Greenstein, Theodore N. 2000. “Economic Dependence, Gender, and the Division of Labor in the Home: A Replication and Extension.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 62:322-335.

Hare, Jane, and Leslie Richards. 1993. “Children Raised by Lesbian Couples: Does Context of Birth Affect Father and Partner Involvement?.” Family Relations 42:249-255.

Huggins, S. L. 1989. “A Comparative Study of Self-Esteem of Adolescent Children of Divorced Lesbian Mothers and Divorced Heterosexual Mothers.” Pp. 123-135 in Homosexuality in the Family, edited by F.W.Bozett. New York, New York: Harrington Park Press.

Joan, Hollinger H. 1993. “Adoption Law.” The Future of Children 3:43-61. Kirkpatrick, M., Smith, C. and Roy, R. 1981. “Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparative Survey.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 51:545-551.

Laird, J. 1998. “Invisible Ties: Lesbians and their Families of Origin.” In Lesbian,Gay, and Bisexual Identities in Families: Psychological Perspectives, Edited by C. J. Patterson and A. R. D’Augelli. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.

Lee, Janet and Susan M. Shaw. 2009. “Family Systems, Family Lives.” Pp. 378- 425 in Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions: Classic and Contemporary Readings, edited by Michael Ryan. New York, New York: McGraw Hill, Inc.

Lorber, Judith. 1994. “Daily Bread: Gender and Domestic Labor.” Pp. 172-193 in Paradoxes of Gender. Binghamton, New York: Yale University Press.

Meezan, William, and Jonathan Rauch. “Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America’s Children.” The Future of Children 15:97-115.

Neophytou, Vanessa-Lynn. 1994. “Lesbian Mothers.” Agenda 22:24-28. Patterson, Charlotte J. 2000. “Family Relationships of Lesbian and Gay Men.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 62:1052-1069.

Sullivan, Maureen. 1996. “Rozzie and Harriet?: Gender and Family Patterns of Lesbian Coparents.” Gender and Society 10:747-767.