A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D. MBA, MPH*
S. J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW
Journal Of Law & Family Studies
University Of Utah
VOLUME 6 NUMBER 2
I. INTRODUCTION
There is no fact that has been established by social science literature more convincingly than the following: all variables considered, children are best served when reared in a home with a married mother and father. David Popenoe (1996) summarized the research nicely: "social science research is almost never conclusive, yet in three decades of work as a social scientist, I know of few other bodies of data in which the weight of evidence is so decisively on one side of the issue: on the whole, for children, two-parent families are preferable to single-parent and step-families" (p. 176). Children navigate developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better; in academic tasks at school, have fewer emotional disorders and become better functioning adults when they are reared by dual-gender parents.
This conclusion, supported further by a plethora of research spanning decades, clearly demonstrates gender-linked differences in child-rearing that are protective for children. That is, men and women contribute differently to the healthy development of children.
Children of parents who are sex-typed are more competent (Baumrind, 1982). Research has repeatedly supported the conclusion that most effective parenting is highly expressive and highly demanding (Baumrind, 1991). Highly expressive, instrumental parenting provides children with a kind of communion characterized by inclusiveness and connectedness, as well as the drive for independence and individuality. These essential contributions to the optimum development of children are virtually impossible for a man or woman alone to combine effectively (Greenberger, 1984). Children learn about male-female relationships through the modeling of their parents. Parental relationships provide children with a model of marriage--the most meaningful relationship that the vast majority of individuals will have during their lifetimes.
Complementarity is readily observable in differing parenting styles of mothers and fathers. No only are fathers' styles highly complementary to the styles of mothers, but research indicates that the fathers' involvement in the lives of children is essential for optimal child-rearing. For example, complementarity is provided by mothers who are flexible, warm and sympathetic, and fathers who are more directive, predictable and consistent. Rossi's research (1987) noted that mothers are better able to read an infant's facial expressions, handle with tactile gentleness, and soothe with the use of voice (p. 113). Fathers tend to emphasize overt play more than caretaking. This play in various forms among the young appears critical for later development. (Yogman, 1982).
A study authored by Marissa Diener, (2002) at the University of Utah, demonstrated that babies (12 months old) who have a close relationship with their fathers seemed more stress resistant than those who did not. Babies who had secure relationships with their fathers used more coping strategies than those who did not. Her conclusion has fascinating implications: "there may be something unique to fathers that provides children with different opportunities to regulate their emotions" (Broughton, 2002 p. Al).
Male and female differences emerge in ways in which infants are held and the differential ways in which mothers and fathers use touch with their children. Mothers more frequently use touch to calm, soothe, or comfort infants. When a mother lifts her child, she brings the child toward her breasts providing warmth, comfort, security and protection. Fathers more often use touch to stimulate or to excite the child. Fathers tend to hold infants at arms length in front of them, make eye contact, toss the infant in the air, or embrace the child in such a way that the child is looking over the father's shoulder. Shapiro notes that each of these "daddy holds" underscores a sense of freedom (1994).
Clarke-Stewart (1980) reported differences in mothers' and fathers' play. Mothers tend to play more at the child's level. Mothers provide an opportunity to direct the play, to be in charge, to proceed at the child's pace. Fathers' play resembles a teacher-student relationship-- apprenticeship of sorts. Fathers' play is more rough-and-tumble. In fact, the lack of this roughand-tumble play emerges disproportionately in the backgrounds of boys who experience gender disorders. Additionally, Clarke-Stewart notes the benefits of this rough-and-tumble play have appeared in child development areas extending from the management of emotions to intellectual and academic achievement. Interestingly enough, fathers' play is related to the development of socially acceptable forms of behaviors and does not positively correlate with violence and aggression, but rather correlates with self-control. Children who "roughhouse" with their fathers quickly learn that biting, kicking and other forms of physical violence are not acceptable. Children learn how to recognize and manage highly charged emotions in the context of playing with their fathers, and such play provides children with opportunities to recognize and respond appropriately to emotions (Cromwell & Leper, 1994).
There are gender differences in parental approaches to discipline. The disciplinary approaches of fathers tend toward firmness, relying on rules and principles. The approaches of mothers tend toward more responsiveness, involving more bargaining, more adjustment toward the child's mood and context, and is more often based on an intuitive understanding of the child's needs and emotions of the moment. Gilligan (1982) concluded that the differences between paternal and maternal approaches to discipline are rooted in the fundamental differences between men and women in their moral senses. Men stress justice, fairness and duty based on rules, while women stress understanding, sympathy, care and helping based on relationships.
,,,, In spite of the overwhelming evidence citing the importance of mothers and fathers to the
healthy development of children, attempts have been made in professional literature to blur the lines between genders, and to claim that neither mothers nor fathers are necessary for positive child outcomes. Such research reports have become increasingly bold with their activist agendas. Perhaps the boldest of such articles appeared in the flagship journal of the American Psychological Association in 1999. In the article titled "Deconstructing the Essential Father," the authors argue that "neither mothers nor fathers are essential to child development and that responsible fathering can occur within a variety of family structures" (Silverstein & Auerbach, 1999, p. 397).
As advocates of homosexual parenting, Silverstein and Auerbach support their "normalcy" or homosexual parenting theory through their observations of animal behavior, They utilized the offspring-raising habits of soft-furred, tree-dwelling South American monkeys to support their view that homosexual parenting leads to positive child outcomes. "Marmosets illustrate how, within a particular bioecological context, optimal child outcomes can be achieved with fathers as primary caregivers and limited involvement by mothers. Human examples of this proposition include single fathers . . . and families headed by gay fathers" (p. 400). I am not sure that animal models are good models for humans. To their credit, however, Silverstein and Auerbach offer the following statements: "We acknowledge that our reading of the scientific literature supports our political agenda. Our goal is to generate public policy initiatives that support men in their fathering role, without discriminating against women and same-sex couples. We are also interested in encouraging public policy that supports the legitimacy of diverse family structures, rather than policy that privileges the two-parent, heterosexual, married family" (p. 399). Further, the authors state, "We realize that some of the research we cite to support our
perspective will turn out to be incorrect" (p. 399). It is noteworthy that the authors did not
consider the best interest of children to be one of their goals. In fact, a careful reading of the
article is reminiscent of activism, but not of science. That such a commentary would appear as the lead article in the premier journal of the American Psychological Association demonstrates that activism has replaced science in this instance.
B. Homosexual Couples and Child-Rearing
Homosexual adoption of children has forced the issue of homosexual couples and child-rearing to center stage. Until recently, advocacy groups have argued that an upbringing in a
homosexual environment not only presents no challenges for children, but actually may be
better than a dual-gendered parenting environment. Such advocacy seems illogical and at odds with the abundance of peer-reviewed research. Nonetheless, the civil rights of homosexual couples, with an activist backdrop of politically correct words like tolerance, diversity and nondiscrimination, seem to dismiss what is in the best interest of the child.
A close scrutiny of many of the studies provided some interesting data, more appropriately
described as problems with the research. Lerner and Nagai (2000), in their excellent review of the research concluded:
The claim has been made that homosexual parents raise children as effectively as married
biological parents. A detailed analysis of the methodologies of the 49 studies, which are put forward to support this claim, shows that they suffer from severe methodological flaws.
In addition to their methodological flaws, none of the studies deals adequately with the problem of affirming the null hypothesis, of adequate sample size, and of spurious non-correlation. (p. 1) The critique of the research on homosexual parenting completed by Williams (2000) arrives at essentially the same conclusion. However, Williams goes a step further in his review of the research by Golombok, Spencer, and Rutter (1983), and Golombok and Tasker (1996), which followed children of lesbian and heterosexual parents into adulthood. He noted that the followup study found that children of lesbian parents were significantly more likely to have both considered and actually engaged in homosexual relationships.
This finding did not seem particularly interesting to the researchers. Williams found that other omissions were made by researchers who conducted research in these areas as well. Huggins found a difference in the variability of self-esteem between children of homosexual and heterosexual parents. Huggins did not test for significance, hut Williams reanalyzed the data and found the differences to he significant. Williams noted that Patterson found, and left unreported, similar differences. Likewise, Williams noted that Lewis found social and emotional difficulties in the lives of children of homosexual parents, but such data did not seem to find its way into her conclusions.
Click Here to read the entire study
