ABBIE E. GOLDBERG Clark University

KATHERINE R. ALLEN Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University*

Imagining Men: Lesbian Mothers’ Perceptions of Male Involvement During the Transition to Parenthood

Much popular and professional literature has through alternative insemination or . focused on the effects of father absence, partic- Lesbian couples pursuing parenthood challenge ularly in lesbian households; yet, little the heterosexual monopoly of reproduction attention has been paid to lesbian ’ pref- (Dunne, 2000) and stereotypes of gay adults as erences and intentions surrounding male antifamily. At the same time, in becoming pa- involvement. This qualitative study of 60 lesbian rents, lesbian mothers open themselves to many women who were transitioning to parenthood of the values that govern heterosexual , explores this issue. Most women desired some such as the assumed need for both male and level of male involvement, even before their female role models. These values may contradict children were born. Far from describing their own lived experience, such as the desire, a desire for ‘‘father figures,’’ however, they implicit or explicit, to become parents without conceptualized male involvement in novel, men. The subject we engage is how lesbians per- diverse, and sometimes ambivalent ways. Hav- ceive and enact the cultural discourse about male ing a boy enhanced some women’s motivations involvement as they transition to motherhood. to actively pursue male role models for their children. Findings are discussed in terms of their implications for understanding of the kin- The Influence of Male Involvement on ship structure of lesbian-parent families and Children’s Gender Identity and Socialization families in general. Theories of gender socialization typically address two related components: (a) gender identification Lesbians have often been excluded from the dis- through role modeling, which is the development course on families (Weston, 1991). Yet, many of one’s sense that one is a boy or a girl, accom- lesbian couples do become parents, increasingly plished via identification with the same-gender parent; and (b) gender socialization, which is an understanding of the rules and expectations asso- ciated with gender, typically achieved through Department of Psychology, Clark University, 950 Main contact with parents and exposure to other agents Street, Worcester, MA 01610 ([email protected]). of socialization such as peers, teachers, and *Department of Human Development, Virginia Polytechnic media figures (Sigal & Nally, 2004). Given the Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061. centrality of the same-gender parent in gender Key Words: diversity, fathers, gender, lesbian, transi- identification, this distinction is the focus of tion to parenthood. concern in discussing father absence. That core

352 Journal of and Family 69 (May 2007): 352–365 Lesbian Mothers and Male Involvement 353 gender identity emerges early may contribute to sis on parents’ gender as a crucial feature in the this urgency: Some developmentalists suggest success of gender identification and highlights that children understand their own gender by 18 differential reinforcement: Children are rein- months, although children do not label them- forced positively when they imitate same-gender selves and others by gender until they are 2 or 3 models and negatively when they imitate oppo- years old (Coates & Wolfe, 1995). Gender social- site-gender models. Such reinforcement results ization, however, is seen as less contingent on the in further imitation of same-gender models. gender of the parent than on the gender of the Both theories posit that the absence of a same- . Boys are the recipients of more rigid gender gender parent may lead to problems in devel- socialization than girls, regardless of the parent’s oping a stable gender identification and, from gender (Eisenberg, Wolchik, Hernandez, & a traditional psychoanalytic perspective, possibly Pasternack, 1985). Fathers tend to be more rigid to homosexuality (Bieber et al., 1962; Eisold, socializing agents than mothers (Langlois & 1998). The absence of a father, combined with Downs, 1980; Tauber, 1979). the presence of two lesbian mothers, would pre- sumably lead to a greater chance of developing On the need for fathers. Fundamental to Western a homosexual identity. Although scholars have culture is the conviction that fathers are essential questioned these claims (Beeler & DiProva, to the healthy psychological, moral, social, and 1999; Herdt & Boxer, 1996; Maccoby & Jacklin, gender development of children (Silverstein & 1974), clinicians and researchers continue to Auerbach, 1999), although the conduct and cul- assert that the presence of an involved father fig- ture of fatherhood is situated within specific ure is important for adequate social, historical, and economic circumstances (e.g., Hetherington, Bridges, & Insabella, 1998). (LaRossa, 1997). Until the early 20th century, fa- thers were the primary parent, responsible for Family structure and child developmental out- children’s moral education. With the shift from comes. Concern about the consequences of father an agrarian society to an urban, industrial society, absence has led to studies of the effects of father the need for fathers transformed to that of bread- absence on children, particularly boys. This work winner. A more nurturant view of fathers has has compared children raised in single-mother taken hold today (Day, Lewis, O’Brien, & Lamb, households with children raised in heterosexual 2005). two-parent households on a number of develop- Two frameworks dominate social science mental outcomes. Research has found that chil- thinking about the importance of the same-gender dren raised by single mothers fare worse in parent. First, classic psychoanalytic theory re- terms of emotional, academic, and developmen- mains an underlying discourse that, despite con- tal outcomes (Dawson, 1991; McLanahan, 1985), temporary challenges (e.g., Chodorow, 1978; leading to conclusions about the ‘‘necessity’’ of Gediman, 2005; Seil, 2000), continues to shape father figures. But single-mother households modern thought about gender development. have fewer resources and greater potential for Freud (1905) theorized that successful resolution stress; one parent is doing the work of two and of the Oedipal complex occurs when the male is more vulnerable to overload and exhaustion child develops feelings for his mother and hatred (McLanahan & Bumpass, 1986). for his father but ultimately chooses to identify with his father out of fear. In the absence of Lesbian parents and child developmental out- a strong male parent, a boy turns to his mother comes. Recent studies have sought to tease apart as the object of identification, leading to less mas- the effects of family structure from gender of par- culine behavior and to homosexual attractions. ent. There is little evidence that children who live Father absence disrupts boys’ same-gender with same-gender single parents fare better than identification process (less attention is paid to children who live with opposite-gender single pa- the consequences of mother absence for girls’ rents (Downey, Ainsworth-Darnell, & Dufur, development). 1998; Powell & Downey, 1997). This research Social learning theory (Bandura & Walters, also provides evidence that the developmental 1963; Mischel, 1966) also emphasizes observa- advantages observed in children raised by hetero- tion of, identification with, and imitation of sexual married parents compared to children of same-gender models by children as they grow. single parents are not a function of the gender This theory, however, places slightly less empha- of parents but of the number of caretakers in the 354 Journal of Marriage and Family home. Despite this research, many scholars and in a timeless way (Thorne, 1992). Current citizens alike believe that children’s development changes in families constitute the emergence of is optimized by the presence of two happily mar- new forms of family, not its disintegration ried heterosexual parents. Wardle (1997) and Po- (Cheal, 1993). Lesbian deconstructs penoe (1996) draw on the controversial literature motherhood as dependent on heterosexual rela- on the putative risks of father absence to promote tions, offering new ways of thinking about marriage initiatives and to deny same-gender family, parenthood, and child development couples the right to raise children (Silverstein & (Oswald, Blume, & Marks, 2005). These family Auerbach, 1999). Concerns about children raised forms offer models of ingenuity (Stacey, 1997). by two gay or lesbian parents focus on the Lesbian parents occupy an ironic space: They absence of a male/female parent and the potential are aware of patriarchal notions about what con- effects of the parents’ sexual orientation on the stitutes a ‘‘real’’ family, but they actively chal- child. Studies have compared children raised in lenge them. The assumption that every child lesbian or gay parent – headed households with needs a father is rooted in theoretical and histori- children raised by heterosexual parents (either cal perspectives that are inherently value laden. two-parent or single-mother households). Child- By choosing to raise a child together, lesbian cou- ren’s socioemotional adjustment appears similar ples defy the cultural imperative and present in both groups (Golombok, Spencer, & Rutter, alternatives to the heterosexual, two-parent, 1983; Kirkpatrick, Smith, & Roy, 1981), and form. Given that lesbian couples these studies have found no significant differen- live in a society that strongly values fathers and ces in gender identity (Green, Mandel, Hotveldt, bemoans their absence, how do they negotiate Gray, & Smith, 1986; Kirkpatrick et al., 1981), the socially constructed nature of parenthood? gendered roles (Golombok et al., 1983; Green Specifically, how do lesbian women who are in et al., 1986), or sexual orientation (Golombok the transitional period of becoming parents, but et al.; Gottman, 1990). for whom parenthood is still imagined, conceptu- Some differences in outcomes have been alize male involvement? noted, however (Stacey & Biblarz, 2001). Kagel and Schilling (1985) found an association Research Questions between father absence and less masculine gen- der identity among boys. MacCallum and Go- We examined lesbians’ perceptions about the lombok (2004) found that boys in father-absent importance of men in their children’s lives. Little families showed more feminine but no less mas- research has explicitly inquired about lesbians’ culine characteristics of gendered role behavior. ideas about male involvement. An exception is Golombok and Tasker (1996) also found that Gartrell et al.’s (1996) study, which quantitatively adolescents raised by lesbian mothers were more assessed lesbian mothers’ preferences about male likely to consider a same-gender relationship than involvement and found that 76% of the sample adolescents raised by heterosexual parents. Some wanted their children to have contact with ‘‘good have used this research to imply these children’s and loving men.’’ Dundas and Kaufman (2000) ‘‘suffering’’ in the absence of a male role model. found that many lesbian parents were concerned Golombok and Tasker suggest that these data about the lack of a male role model but did not reflect the possibility that children raised in feel that it would harm their child. female-headed households have internalized We investigated three major research ques- a flexible approach to gender, roles, and sexual- tions. First, how do lesbians who are becoming ity, which is an advantage of being raised in this mothers think about male involvement? Men do family structure. Heterosexism, not parental sex- not need to be central in a family to be valued ual orientation, is a larger problem for children of as socialization sources. In matrifocal Caribbean same-gender parents (Ray & Gregory, 2001). families, women combine caretaking, housework, and breadwinning; yet, men are still involved in their lives (Brunod & Cook-Darzens, 2002). In A Feminist Perspective on Lesbian a study of single heterosexual women who used Mothers Imagining Men alternative insemination to become pregnant, Feminists challenge the ideology of the mono- Hertz (2002) found that women reaffirmed ra- lithic family and the notion that any one family ther than challenged traditional notions of arrangement is natural, biological, or functional kinship: Although unknown, and physically Lesbian Mothers and Male Involvement 355 absent, donors came to be conceptualized by transition to parenthood. The 60 women were mothers as ‘‘fathers.’’ members of 30 inseminating couples. Quantita- Second, why do men matter to lesbian women tive and qualitative data were collected. In this who are becoming mothers? Given concerns article, we analyze and report primarily the qual- about the consequences of father absence for itative open-ended data. boys, lesbian mothers of boys might be more at- Because the sample consisted of couples, we tuned to male involvement. In contrast, mothers examined the data to determine if it was meaning- of girls may breathe a sigh of relief and feel they ful to present the analysis by 30 couples or 60 in- do not have to worry about gender identification. dividuals. We determined that the better method Child gender and perceived scrutiny, however, was to discuss lesbian mothers’ intentionality may not matter. Women may view contact with about male involvement as an individual, not men as valuable because it is a parent’s responsi- couple variable. As the results indicate, women bility to prepare children for social interaction. differed in their level of intentionality: Some Women may value men’s contribution with chil- were very deliberate about male involvement, dren in terms of their higher activity level, playful some were flexible, and some were ambivalent. interaction style, and physically arousing In our preliminary data analysis, we examined (Paquette, 2004; Teti, Bond, & Gibbs, 1988). whether intentionality status varied by couple as Third, who are the men that women want to be well as by maternal status. We examined the involved in their children’s lives? Close relation- extent of agreement in intentionality and the ships with male friends and family members may degree to which biological mothers and non- lead lesbians to want their child to know specific biological comothers were categorized as de- men. Patterson, Hurt, and Mason (1998) found liberate, flexible, or ambivalent. As Table 1 that 58% of children had regular contact with indicates, in half of the couples, both partners their biological mother’s father, 24% with their were deliberate, and in half the couples, there nonbiological mother’s father, and 62% with was a mismatch in intentionality. Because part- unrelated male adults, suggesting that both male ners did not talk about their male preferences friends and family members are valued sources and intentions as a couple-negotiated phenome- of support. Known donors may also play a role non, we focused our analysis at the individual in the child’s life: Gartrell et al. (2000) found level. In the results, we distinguish between bio- that when children of lesbian mothers were 5 logical mothers and nonbiological comothers, years old, 29% of known donors had regular but we do not discuss the results at the couple contact with their children and 71% of known level. donors saw the children occasionally. Selection of the sample. Inclusion criteria for the study were as follows: (a) women must be in com- METHOD mitted (living together) lesbian relationships, (b) both women must be becoming a parent for the Research Design first time, and (c) at least one partner must be re- The current project utilizes data obtained from 60 turning to work full time after the birth. This last lesbians who were interviewed twice during the criterion was important in that one of the study

Table 1. Intentionality Status by Couple (N ¼ 30 couples)

Biological Mothers

Comothers Deliberate (n ¼ 19) Flexible (n ¼ 8) Ambivalent (n ¼ 3) Total

Deliberate (n ¼ 21) 15 5 1 21 Flexible (n ¼ 7) 3 2 2 7 Ambivalent (n ¼ 2) 1 1 0 2 Total 19 8 3 30 Note: Deliberate women strongly value male involvement and are conscious and intentional about pursuing it. Flexible women value male involvement, but are relaxed in their approach. Ambivalent women are unsure of their feelings about male involvement and/or whether they will actively pursue it. 356 Journal of Marriage and Family goals was to examine how couples negotiated Thirty-one percent of women chose a known work-family issues. donor, someone who donated the sperm to them Women who were becoming parents via donor personally, and who often wished to maintain insemination were interviewed in their third tri- contact. Ten percent of women chose donors mester (about a month before the birth) and when who agreed to be contacted when the child is of their baby was 3 months old. Couples consist, some specified age or who agreed that the family then, of a biological mother (the mother who car- may contact the sperm bank when the child is of ries and gives birth to the child) and a comother some specified age. The sperm bank then contacts (the biological mother’s partner). Given the geo- the donor, who decides whether he wishes to be graphical diversity of the participants—41% contacted. Eighteen couples were the mothers lived on the East Coast, 21% resided on the West of sons, 7 couples welcomed girls into their lives, Coast, 21% lived in the Midwest, and 17% lived and 5 couples had twins (4 were mixed-gender in the South—phone interviews were conducted twins and 1 couple had twin girls). with all but four women (two couples), who were interviewed in person. Several recruitment meth- Data Collection Process and ods were used. The study was advertised in news- Open-Ended Questions letters, listservs, and Web sites pertaining to groups or organizations that reach a lesbian audi- Each woman was interviewed alone. Interviews ence, such as Rainbow Families (a national group lasted about an hour and covered a range of for lesbian and gay parents and their children) and topics, including relationship quality, well-being, the Human Rights Campaign (the U.S.’s largest and employment. Women also completed civil rights organization working to achieve les- a packet of questionnaires (demographic data bian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equality), and quantitative measures) that were sent to their and Unitarian Universalist churches in the United home; these also took about an hour to complete. States. The study was advertised in the offices of Each woman was asked to fill out her packet midwives and gynecologists, and at prenatal edu- separate from her partner, within a week of the cation classes. The researcher’s contact informa- interview. Women returned their packets in post- tion was included with the study description, and age-paid envelopes. women were asked to contact the principal inves- For the current analysis, we address data col- tigator for more information. At that point, the lected on the following open-ended questions. study was explained to participants. If interested, At the first interview (1 month before the birth: couples were mailed consent forms assuring con- Time 1), women were asked, ‘‘Some lesbian pa- fidentiality and detailing the conditions of partic- rents think it’s important for their children to have ipation. Women were asked to return the signed men or ‘father figures’ in their lives, and actively consent form with the questionnaire packet. make an effort to ensure that this will happen. Other lesbian parents feel that it is important for children to have men in their lives, but don’t feel Description of the Sample it’s necessary to actively bring men into the mix: Participants were in their mid-30s and had been Children will be exposed to men incidentally in in their current relationship for about 6 years, many ways and in many areas of their lives. Still on average. Except for two Korean Americans, others feel that children do not necessarily need all participants were European American. About men in their lives at all. What do you think?’’ 10% of the sample identified themselves as Jew- At the second interview (3 months after the ish, indicating some level of religious heteroge- birth: Time 2), women were asked, ‘‘Have your neity. Women tended to be highly educated: feelings about the importance of men in your 14% of the sample had a high school diploma, child’s life changed at all? How?’’ 7% an associate’s degree or vocational degree, 14% of the sample a bachelor’s degree, 43% a master’s degree, and 22% a professional degree Data Analysis Process (PhD, MD, JD). Couples’ median combined Methodological framework. A constructivist (family) income was $84,000. grounded theory approach allowed us to investi- Most women (59%) chose an unknown donor, gate the creation of both gender and family as a donor whose identity could never be known to they emerge in lesbians’ narratives. A construc- the child (and who had waived all legal rights). tivist approach implies awareness of the mutual Lesbian Mothers and Male Involvement 357 creation of knowledge by the viewer and the To further understand how these three groups viewed, and aims toward interpretive understand- of women differed, we examined their reasons ing of participants’ meanings (Charmaz, 2003). for thinking that men mattered. We made com- We assume that our findings are shaped by and parisons across the major coding categories to reflect the researchers’ interpretive lens: The cat- more fully analyze how they made distinctions egories and theory that emerge are a function of between perceptions and intentions about male our interactions with and questions about the data involvement. The feminist constructivist ap- (Charmaz). We are interested not only in mean- proach, as well as the research questions and ings but also in values, beliefs, and structures. interview guide questions, filtered women’s voi- This interest requires the researchers to listen ces so that we were able to reach a more complex carefully and openly to participants. understanding of their experiences and percep- tions in the final process of coding. To test the Coding. Both authors, who each read the partici- emergent theory we generated to understand les- pant transcripts multiple times, coded the data. bian mothers’ ideas about male involvement, we We began the coding process with open coding examined women’s responses at the couple level, or line-by-line coding (Glaser, 1978). This in- as noted above. volves examining each line of narrative and This process of reading the transcripts and defining events or actions within it. This ap- working with the data led us to revise the coding proach led to refining and specifying emerging scheme 11 times. During these revisions, some codes and broader categories. Then, we engaged codes that initially appeared useful were com- in selective or focused coding, which uses initial bined with other codes or eliminated. By the codes that frequently reappear to sort the data. 11th collaborative revision of the codes, we This coding is more conceptual than initial cod- arrived at a scheme that included three major cat- ing (Charmaz, 2003). After creating a coding egories that best synthesize and explain the data, scheme, we continued to apply it to the data, and thus answer our research questions. We orga- which in turn generated changes. We engaged nize the report of our findings around this coding in this dynamic process, reapplying the coding scheme, which appears in three main sections. scheme to the data and making subsequent revi- First, we discuss the spectrum of women’s per- sions, until we were satisfied that we had ac- ceptions and intentions surrounding male in- counted for all the data. volvement. Second, we discuss women’s ideas The main question that was asked in the inter- about why men matter. Third, we address wom- view used the terms very important, important, en’s ideas about which men will be involved. and not very important. Not surprisingly, women tended to use these words themselves in their responses. An initial coding scheme was evident FINDINGS (e.g., very important, important, and not impor- tant) that appeared to distinguish among the Lesbians Choosing Male Involvement: sample. Upon closer reading and discussion of A Spectrum of Perceptions and Intentions women’s responses and through the processes of open and focused coding, a spectrum of per- How do lesbians think about male involvement? ceptions and intentions emerged. We found that Women’s responses revealed a spectrum of per- the code very important was much more elabo- ceptions and intentions regarding male involve- rate in women who were ‘‘intentional, con- ment. Three groups of women emerged, with scious, and deliberate’’ about male involvement. properties along two dimensions: perceptions The important code was about women who (are men important?); and intentions (will I go were flexible but aware in their approach to out of my way to ensure male involvement?). In male involvement. Those in the not-very-impor- the first group (deliberate), women expressed tant category were actually ambivalent about the view that male involvement was very impor- men; their narratives about male involvement tant and intended to make special efforts to were full of tension and contradiction. Thus, ensure that their children were exposed to men. rather than the neat typology suggested at first, A second group of women (flexible) felt that a more complex spectrum of perceptions and in- male involvement was important but did not in- tentions emerged through the continual analysis tend to go out of their way to ensure male in- process. volvement. A third group of women (ambivalent) 358 Journal of Marriage and Family appeared to be ambivalent and did not intend to peared to be somewhat unsure about whether actively pursue male involvement. they felt male involvement was important. Their narratives expressed tension and contradiction. Deliberate: ‘‘We plan to be very intentional For example, one woman wavered between about it.’’ When asked about the importance or explicit endorsement of the value of men and re- role of men in their child’s life before the child’s jecting the notion that men represent a unique arrival, the majority of women (40 women: 19 ingredient to family life, thus revealing tension biological, 21 comothers) were highly conscious in her perceptions of men. Another woman’s nar- of the fact that their child will not grow up with rative revealed a mismatch between her percep- a male parent and expressed concern about the tions and intentions: Like the deliberate women, absence of a male figure. Their concern fueled she expressed anxiety about the absence of men their intention to find potential male role models; from the household but ultimately concluded that these women were systematic and planful in their she and her partner would not go out of their way approach. Women had thoughtfully considered to secure male role models. In three cases, women the who and how of male contact, and many had downplayed the importance of men but stated already spoken to male friends and family, or their intentions to find men. Their ambivalence joined parenting groups. As Annie, a biological seemed to reflect a tension between societal pres- mother, stated: sures and their own true feelings. Nina, a birth mother, said: I am concerned about this. We don’t have male friends and I think we’ll have to consciously join If we were on a desert island, we could do a great a parents group or . we do have male relatives job raising Max. But we’re in THIS society. It’s who will be very good. But, on a day in, day out an issue we talk about—how intentional it’s situation . I think we’ll have to work on that going to be. I’m not handing over the reigns to because I think that male-female balance does a guy just because he’s a guy. need to be there.

Change across the transition to parenthood. Flexible: ‘‘I think it’s important but I’m not sure Some women’s feelings, and in turn, their inten- if we’ll go out of our way.’’ Fifteen women (8 bio- tions, changed across the transition. Five women logical, 7 comothers) expressed feeling that there (three biological, two comothers), who were ini- was value in having their children exposed to men tially characterized as deliberate, grew more flex- but were not worried about male involvement. ible once they became parents. Initially Rather, they were relatively relaxed about and intentional, they became less concerned post- open to how and when male involvement would birth, noting that the issue of male involvement unfold, and their narratives lacked the intensity did not seem as important as anticipated. As their and anxiety that characterized many of the delib- perceptions of male involvement shifted, their in- erate women. In some cases, their flexible attitude tentions also became more relaxed. They felt derived from their sense that they already had suf- more at ease with the current availability of ficient men around. Terri, a biological mother, men, and they did not intend to go out of their said: way for the time being. Kristine, a comother, who at Time 1 noted her intentions to solicit I think it’s important but I’m not sure if we will male involvement, became less deliberate and go out of our way. We have a nice spread of male more flexible: friends who we think can be role models. I do think it’s important. Some relief for me, it’s inter- esting—is having a girl, it seems a little less sig- I think it is important. . I’m hopeful that the nificant that there’s no male role model but who donor and my dad and my male friends will be is to say it should feel less significant? I think that accessible to the boys, but I don’t think it’ll make may be flawed thinking . [but] I’m not con- or break their development. cerned that she’ll be lacking. In contrast, four women (two biological, two co- mothers) evolved from being relatively flexible to Ambivalent: ‘‘It’s important . but I don’t think being much more deliberate in their approach. men and women are necessarily different.’’ Five Prior to becoming parents, they were relatively women (three biological, two comothers) ap- unconcerned about their accessibility to men. Lesbian Mothers and Male Involvement 359

Upon becoming parents, however, they realized the value of male role models, but they were less that exposure to men might not just ‘‘happen.’’ responsive to social pressures. They did not wish Noted Sharon, a birth mother: to be judged, but they expressed no intention to ‘‘structure’’ male contact. Finally, ambivalent I think that before—I thought I’d foster relation- women both reified and resisted the societal ships with him with men at my discretion—give notion that children need men. Their awareness him what he needed. Now I think, I’ll need to of societal pressures pushed them to acknowl- give him more access to men. This is part of the reason we are going to move to Minnesota, hope- edge the (relative) importance of men, but, in fully. My brother is there, and he’s already acting the same breath, they expressed a contradictory in a fatherly role; he has a child one year older. set of ideas in which they rejected this notion. Because Joshua is going to be a man, maybe there are some things he needs to learn from men. ‘‘I want to be fair to my child.’’ Fifteen women (11 deliberate, 2 flexible, 2 ambivalent) empha- Furthermore, three of these four women noted sized that men were important in that they wanted that seeing their children’s reactions to the men to be fair to their child. They felt that their child in their lives had also made them more conscious would be ‘‘missing out’’ if they did not have male and deliberate. Jess, a birth mother, stated: contact, and they did not want their child to feel any different from other children or, for that mat- I think it’s more important than I thought it’d be. When he sees the men I work with, and my ter, from themselves. Several women described brother and dad, there is something different in close relationships with their own fathers and the way he responds to them. As he gets older, it wanted to ensure that their children did not will become more important. entirely miss out on such an experience. These women‘s feelings about male contact were moti- vated by concern for their child, in contrast to Why Do Men Matter? Women’s Perceptions concerns about being judged themselves. Debbie, of the Importance of Male Role Models a deliberate biological mother, said:

Why do lesbian mothers feel that male role mod- I think it’s important and we may have to actively els are important? Several major themes emerged work on it. There are a lot of men in this world with regard to women’s accounts of why they felt and most of our friends are women so I think that male involvement was important. we‘ll have to make more of an effort with making friends with men. I don’t want him to feel deprived. Societal norms. Eleven women (6 deliberate, 2 flexible, 3 ambivalent) noted awareness of socie- Most women who wanted to be fair to their child tal norms and/or social pressures as a reason they were categorized as deliberate. They approached felt male involvement was important. Aware of male involvement in the spirit of ‘‘intensive their status as a nontraditional family within the mothering’’ (Hays, 1996): They were willing to broader social context, they were concerned push their own values aside to focus on how to about how their family and child would be get their children the exposure to men they felt received should they shun or de-emphasize male they deserved. involvement. Their consciousness of the societal belief that every child needs a mother and a father ‘‘In the name of diversity.’’ Twenty women shaped their views about male involvement. For (12 deliberate, 7 flexible, and 1 ambivalent) situ- deliberate women, awareness of societal norms ated their wish for male involvement in terms translated into active efforts to secure men; they of their desire to have their child be exposed did not want to be judged. Galit, a comother, said: to a ‘‘diverse’’ group of people. Having men involved was important in the context of their I think it’s important. We actually worry about it. wish to expose their child to ‘‘all kinds of peo- We don’t have many close male friends. We have been talking about, How are we going to make ple’’: straight and gay, male and female, and with sure our child has male role models? I don’t a range of ethnic and racial backgrounds. really know. . We have to structure that more. About 30% of the deliberate mothers and about 50% of the flexible mothers named diver- Flexible women also recited the socially accept- sity as a reason men were important. Deliberate able discourse of the importance of men, noting mothers who contextualized their desire for male 360 Journal of Marriage and Family involvement in terms of diversity described they were having boys. Three deliberate mothers ways they planned to make sure their child had who did not know the gender of their child antic- this exposure. As Deena, a deliberate biological ipated that male involvement would be more mother, noted: salient if they ended up with a boy. These data suggest that for some women, whatever their val- ues about male role models, having a boy exerted We have lots of people set and lined up. Men touch and interact with children so differently; a powerful shaping effect on their thoughts and we’re wanting to have diversity of experience for intentions surrounding male involvement. this kid; we’ve already made plans and have in- Some women acknowledged that they hoped tentions of having family members and friends to have men involved in their potential sons’ lives involved. for pragmatic and stereotypical reasons. One deliberate mother and the ambivalent mother Deena suggests that there is something unique contextualized their wish for men in their knowl- about men. In contrast, flexible women said that edge that their child would need to use public men are important in terms of diversity but added bathrooms. Two deliberate mothers mentioned caveats that suggest they may simply be paying (both rather lightly) their hope of finding men ‘‘lip service’’ because of strong values for diver- who could teach their sons to fix things. Monica, sity. Becky, a flexible birth mother, said: a deliberate birth mother, wanted a man for her child ‘‘because of role modeling’’ and to be some- It’s important for the sake of diversity. I don’t one ‘‘he could talk to.’’ She was the only one to think we will go especially out of the way to mention the quality or type of relationship her include men in this child’s life. But before con- future son might have with an adult man. ceiving, I felt strongly that our child know who Four flexible mothers were not as concerned his other biological parent is. We wanted him to have a relationship with his other parent. It is not about men because they were having girls and an issue that he’s male—it’s just, it’s like adop- said they might be more proactive if they were tion: we don’t want him to wonder. having boys. Three deliberate mothers said that their child’s gender was not important; they would be intentional regardless of whether they Specific men. Another reason some women felt had a boy or girl. Two of these women did not that male contact was important was that they know their child’s gender, and one woman knew had specific men in mind whom they wanted their that she was having a boy. Two of these women children to know: Namely, 23 deliberate women noted that, boy or girl, they wanted their child and 6 flexible women named specific men as to have ‘‘quality relationships’’ with men, to have a motivation for wanting male contact. Not just ‘‘someone to bond with.’’ any man would do; the men they wanted to be involved were men with whom they already had Elaborating Kinship: Real Men in relationships: fathers, brothers, and other ‘‘healthy, Our Families and Communities quality men.’’ Four deliberate mothers said they had relation- Beyond ‘‘imagining men,’’ who are the real men ships with wonderful fathers with whom they that these women involve in their own and their were very close; such images of ‘‘real men’’ ap- children’s lives? An extensive list of men peared to shape both these women’s level of in- emerged from women’s narratives at Time 2. tentionality about male contact and their ideas Women gave elaborate descriptions of the actual about what kind of men they wanted involved. men who would be or who were playing a role in their child’s life, typically mentioning multiple The role of child gender: Having a boy or girl individuals. In addition to naming men in their makes a difference. Child gender shaped wom- families, male friends, and men in the gay com- en’s perceptions of the need for and reasons for munity, they created new categories of men: male contact, such that having a boy engendered potential goddads, husbands of heterosexual greater reflection about how they would solve the women friends, and a male pediatrician. ‘‘man problem,’’ whereas having a girl elicited mild relief. At Time 1, two deliberate mothers Brothers. Brothers were frequently mentioned as and one ambivalent mother noted that male potential role models; in fact, brothers emerged involvement was particularly important because as the unsung heroes in these mothers’ kinship Lesbian Mothers and Male Involvement 361 networks. A total of 25 women (16 deliberate, 7 ‘‘the donor’’ (three women), but also as ‘‘his birth flexible, 2 ambivalent) named brothers as playing father’’ (one woman). Monica, a deliberate birth a key role in their child’s life. Eva, a deliberate co- mother, said: mother, was very close to her brother and wanted to give him a special role with her child: The donor does have a role. He is totally great. Time will tell—Will I change my definition of We [talked about it] a long time ago. . We family to include him? So far, he’s been every- thought, maybe we’d have a dedication ceremony thing I could ever dream of. and have my brother and my brother-in-law be godparents. Other men. Several other kin and friendship cat- egories emerged: male family unspecified (8 Fathers. In contrast to stereotypes of lesbians as deliberate, 6 flexible, 1 ambivalent), nephews (4 having poor relationships with their fathers, deliberate), neighbors (3 deliberate, 3 flexible), women often spoke enthusiastically about the male colleagues (2 deliberate, 2 flexible), hetero- role they hoped their own father would play in sexual men/‘‘straight guys’’ (2 deliberate, 1 flex- their child’s life. Eighteen women (15 deliberate ible), gay men (2 deliberate, 1 ambivalent), and and 3 flexible) named their fathers as an important a male physician (1 deliberate). source of male contact. Stated Shannon, a deliber- Six of the 15 flexible women named specific ate biological mother, ‘‘I think my dad will be men as a reason for feeling male contact was very involved. He’s very excited about having important at Time 1; all 15 women named men a grandson.’’ in their lives who were playing a role at Time 2. Of the 40 deliberate women, 23 named specific Male friends. Male friends were a frequently men at Time 1, and 29 mentioned available men named source of male involvement. A total of at Time 2. These data suggest that the availability 28 women (16 deliberate, 10 flexible, 2 ambiva- of men is not driving women’s intentionality: lent) talked about close male companions whom Deliberate women are not deliberate because of they hoped would form a bond with their child. the absence of men, and flexible women are not Far from being casual male acquaintances, many flexible because they have men around (and it is of the men these women mentioned were impor- easy for them). Most women name men, and tant members of their friendship networks. Six many different kinds of men. Alternatively, that women mentioned friends, and two women men- half of the flexible women do not cite specific tioned friends who would act as ‘‘goddads’’ to men at Time 1 does not reflect a paucity of men their child. Three male friends were explicitly in their lives, as evidenced by the large number described as gay. Gay men were sometimes men- of men they name at Time 2. Rather, it reflects tioned in the context of the ‘‘role-breaking’’ func- their less intense feelings about the necessity of tion they would serve: Women hoped that their men. gay friends would help to break down stereotypes of men and masculinity. One innovative friendship category was DISCUSSION ‘‘friends’ husbands.’’ Five women (two deliber- Rather than imagining the heteronormative fam- ate, two flexible, one ambivalent) mentioned ily ideal and the corresponding presence of female friends’ husbands as a source of male con- a live-in father, the lesbian mothers in this sample tact: ‘‘We have our best friend‘s husband,’’ said invoked the presence of men whom they Lillian, a flexible comother. ‘‘Our two best friends know—men who will be involved not because are heterosexual and in couples,’’ said Nancy, of their embodiment of some father ideal but a deliberate biological mother. Thus, lesbians’ because they are good quality men, and will be friendships with heterosexual women gave them good quality role models (Gartrell et al., 1996). access to heterosexual male role models. In this way, the current study builds upon and ex- pands the perspective of Weston (1991), Allen Donors. Nine women (six deliberate, two flexi- and Demo (1995), and others, who have argued ble, and one ambivalent) mentioned the (known) that lesbian and gay definitions of family go donors as playing a role. These men were com- beyond those on the basis of legal or biological monly referred to by name (five women) or as ties. Oswald (2002) suggests that this ability 362 Journal of Marriage and Family and willingness to ‘‘reimagine family’’ represents ‘‘responding’’ to men’s maleness. This experi- a form of resilience: Lesbians often expand their ence can be viewed as highlighting the persis- kinship base beyond biolegal kin to include tence of the heteronormative narrative, even for friends, former lovers, and other individuals, women who are intentionally creating families a group that is characterized by diverse genders that exist outside of the mainstream (Oswald and sexualities, and is chosen rather than or- et al., 2005). Lesbians and gay parents cannot dained. Consistent with Patterson et al.’s (1998) escape the broader society; ideas about gender findings, male biolegal kin (particularly brothers) infuse their thinking about their children’s devel- are often mentioned by the women in the sample; opment in conscious and unconscious ways. male friends, however, are mentioned just as fre- Women’s narratives about the importance of quently. Thus, these women were not imagining men ‘‘for the sake of diversity’’ reflected their ‘‘fathers’’ for their children; they were imagining awareness of the fact that notions of gender and men. sexuality are entwined (Silverstein, Auerbach, & The availability of men is present in all groups Levant, 2002), as they cited their desire to include of women, whether they initially presented as both heterosexual and gay men in their children’s conscious and deliberate, flexible and open, or lives. Lesbians are likely to choose gay men as were ambivalent about male involvement. The donors because of legal concerns (gay men would differences in these women’s thoughts about be as vulnerable as lesbians in a custody battle) men appear to stem from different values and and because they perceive them as potentially pressures associated with male involvement. more committed to their children (heterosexual For example, deliberate women who have con- men have many opportunities to conceive) scious intentions to pursue male involvement (Ryan-Flood, 2005). Lesbian mothers may value often invoke societal pressures, a desire not to gay men because they serve as a challenge to het- deprive their child, and having a boy, as reasons eronormative masculinity. This sentiment was for their ideas regarding the importance of men. voiced by several women. Yet, some women in This underscores the tension that all lesbian the sample also highlighted the involvement of mothers face in becoming parents: These women ‘‘good straight men.’’ This tendency may reflect are highly motivated and reflective about the pro- conformity to heterosexist family values; it may cess of becoming parents, but they cannot escape also reflect a true valuing of diversity, however, the cultural narrative that children (especially and their sense that many types of men can be boys) need male socialization to develop ‘‘prop- good role models (Ruddick, 1992). Such com- erly.’’ Paradoxically, lesbian mothers are pio- ments may also reflect the tension these women neers and traditionalists, forging new paths by face in trying to create families that will not be tar- creating nontraditional families but also capitu- geted with criticism, while also honoring their lating to gender stereotypes by emphasizing the own values and ideals. need for men to teach their child how to repair a carburetor. They resist and transform gender Limitations and Future Research Directions and family scripts but also recite and accommo- date to the cultural narrative (Lewin, 1993). There are several limitations of this study. The Thus, women’s responses reflect their own val- sample is homogenous in terms of race, educa- ues and experiences (e.g., their personal narra- tion, and income, limiting its transferability: tives about gender; their experiences with their Poor and working-class lesbians may be less own fathers, brothers, and other men) as well as likely to pursue assisted reproduction because the pressures and scrutiny they face as lesbian of the high cost (Murphy, 2001). Perhaps racial parents. or ethnic minority lesbians have different ideas Of interest is that some women became more about male involvement. Another limitation is deliberate across the transition to parenthood, the short time frame: Actual male involvement whereas some became more flexible, illustrating will likely change as children age. the fact that women’s perceptions and intention- Despite these limitations, the current study ality surrounding male involvement are fluid makes an important contribution toward under- and responsive to changes in context as well as standing how lesbian couples negotiate the issue the realities of parenting. Three of the four of ‘‘father absence’’ across the transition to par- women who became more deliberate did so enthood. Facing powerful messages that ‘‘chil- because they ‘‘perceived’’ their children to be dren need a father,’’ these women balance their Lesbian Mothers and Male Involvement 363 own values and social pressures in approaching Bieber, I., Dain, H., Dince, P., Drellich, M. G., Grand, male involvement. Although few women denied H. G., Gundlach, R. H., et al. (1962). Homosexual- that men have anything unique to offer, in becom- ity: A psychoanalytic study of male homosexuality. ing parents, they resist the notion that a father is New York: Vintage Books. necessary for healthy child development. Their Brunod, R., & Cook-Darzens, S. (2002). Men’s role existence challenges traditional notions of family and fatherhood in French Caribbean families: A and heterosexist norms that govern parenting multi-systemic ’resource’ approach. Clinical Child roles, but their narratives also point to their Psychology and Psychiatry, 7, 559 – 569. awareness of these ideas and highlight the ways Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist they navigate their journey as lesbian parents. and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Of interest is how these families’ lives continue S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry to unfold. The children will likely be exposed to (2nd ed., pp. 249 – 291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. role flexibility. Raised by two women, they will Cheal, D. (1993). Unity and difference in postmodern also have many straight and gay male role mod- families. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 5 – 19. els, and they may show greater role flexibility Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mother- themselves (MacCallum & Golombok, 2004). ing. Berkeley: University of California Press. Theories of gender socialization are often inter- Coates, S., & Wolfe, S. (1995). Gender identity preted to mean that certain behaviors (e.g., het- disorder in boys: The interface of constitution erosexuality, higher levels of masculinity and early experience. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 51, among boys and men) are indicative of ‘‘normal’’ 6 – 38. development. Freud (1905) himself, however, Dawson, D. A. (1991). Family structure and child- encouraged us to consider sexual orientation ren’s health and well-being: Data from the 1988 and masculinity/femininity as overlapping and National Health Interview Survey on Child Health. continuous traits that coexist within individuals. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 573 – These lesbian mothers challenge us to rethink 584. developmental theories, to consider the poten- Day, R. D., Lewis, C., O’Brien, M., & Lamb, M. E. tially politicized nature of the assumptions that (2005). Fatherhood and father involvement: Emerg- underlie these theories (e.g., every child needs ing constructs and theoretical orientations. In a mother and a father), and to question the use V. Bengtson, A. Acock, K. Allen, P. Dilworth- of rigid gendered roles as proxies for normal Anderson, & D. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family development. theory & research (pp. 341 – 365). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Downey, D. B., Ainsworth-Darnell, J. W., & Dufur, NOTE M. J. (1998). Sex of parent and children’s well- being in single-parent households. Journal of Mar- This research was conducted under the Roy Scrivner Award (2002), awarded to the first author by the American Psycho- riage and the Family, 60, 878 – 893. logical Foundation, and the Jessie Bernard Award (2002), Dundas, S., & Kaufman, M. (2000). The Toronto awarded to the first author by the National Council on Family Lesbian Family Study. Journal of Homosexuality, Relations. We are deeply grateful to all the women who partic- 40, 65 – 79. ipated in the current study. Dunne, G. A. (2000). Opting into motherhood: Les- bians blurring the boundaries and transforming the meaning of parenthood and kinship. Gender & REFERENCES Society, 14, 11 – 35. Allen, K. R., & Demo, D. H. (1995). The families of Eisenberg, N., Wolchik, S. A., Hernandez, R., & lesbians and gay men: A new frontier in family Pasternack, J. F. (1985). Parental socialization of research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, young children’s play: A short-term longitudinal 111 – 127. study. Child Development, 56, 1506 – 1513. Bandura, A., & Walters, R. (1963). Social learning Eisold, B. (1998). Recreating mother: The consolida- and personality development. New York: Holt, tion of ‘heterosexual’ gender identification in the Rinehart & Winston. young son of homosexual men. American Journal Beeler, J., & DiProva, V. (1999). Family adjustment of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 433 – 442. following disclosure of homosexuality by a mem- Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of ber: Themes discerned in narrative accounts. Jour- sexuality. In J. Stratchey (Ed.), On sexuality, 7. nal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25, 443 – 459. London: Penguin. 364 Journal of Marriage and Family

Gartrell, N., Banks, A., Reed, N., Hamilton, J., Langlois, J. H., & Downs, A. C. (1980). Mothers, fa- Rodas, C., & Deck, A. (2000). The National Les- thers, and peers as socialization agents of sex- bian Family Study: 3. Interviews with mothers of typed play behaviors in young children. Child five-year-olds. American Journal of Orthopsy- Development, 51, 1237 – 1247. chiatry, 70, 542 – 548. LaRossa, R. (1997). The modernization of father- Gartrell, N., Hamilton, J., Banks, A., Mosbacher, D., hood: A social and political history. Chicago: Uni- Reed, N., Sparks, C. H., & Bishop, H. (1996). The versity of Chicago Press. National Lesbian Family Study: 1. Interviews with Lewin, E. (1993). Lesbian mothers: Accounts of prospective mothers. American Journal of Ortho- gender in American culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell psychiatry, 66, 272 – 281. University Press. Gediman, H. (2005). Premodern, modern, and post- MacCallum, F., & Golombok, S. (2004). Children modern perspectives on sex and gender mixes. raised in fatherless families from infancy: A fol- Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Associa- low-up of children of lesbian and single hetero- tion, 53, 1059 – 1078. sexual mothers at early adolescence. Journal Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 45, 1407 – Valley, CA: Sociology Press. 1419. Golombok, S., Spencer, A., & Rutter, M. (1983). Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psy- Children in lesbian and house- chology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford holds: psychosocial and psychiatric appraisal. University Press. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, McLanahan, S. S. (1985). Family structure and the 551 – 172. reproduction of poverty. American Journal of Golombok, S., & Tasker, F. (1996). Do parents influ- Sociology, 90, 873 – 901. ence the sexual orientation of their children? Find- McLanahan, S. S., & Bumpass, L. (1986). Intergener- ings from a longitudinal study of lesbian families. ational consequences of family disruption. Ameri- , 32, 3 – 11. can Journal of Sociology, 94, 130 – 152. Gottman, J. (1990). Children of gay and lesbian pa- Mischel, W. A. (1966). A social learning view of sex rents. In F. Bozett & M. Sussman (Eds.), Homo- differences in behavior. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), sexuality and family relations (pp. 177 – 196). The development of sex differences (pp. 56 – 81). New York: Harrington Park. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Green, R., Mandel, J., Hotveldt, M., Gray, J., & Murphy, J. (2001). Should lesbians count as infertile Smith, L. (1986). Lesbian mothers and their chil- couples? Anti-lesbian discrimination in assisted dren: A comparison with solo parent heterosexual reproduction. In M. Bernstein & R. Reimann mothers and their children. Archives of Sexual (Eds.), Queer families, queer politics: Challenging Behavior, 15, 67 – 84. culture and the state (pp. 182 – 200). New York: Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of moth- Columbia University Press. erhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Oswald, R. F. (2002). Resilience within the family Herdt, G., & Boxer, A. (1996). Children of horizons: networks of lesbians and gay men: Intentionality How gay and lesbian teens are leading a new way and redefinition. Journal of Marriage and Family, out of the closet. Boston: Beacon Press. 64, 374 – 383. Hertz, R. (2002). The father as an idea: A challenge Oswald, R. F., Blume, L. B., & Marks, S. R. (2005). to kinship boundaries by single mothers. Symbolic Decentering heteronormativity: A model for family Interaction, 25, 1 – 31. studies. In V. Bengtson, A. Acock, K. Allen, P. Hetherington, E. M., Bridges, M., & Insabella, G. M. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. Klein (Eds.), Source- (1998). What matters? What does not? Five per- book of family theory & research (pp. 143 – 165). spectives on the association between marital transi- Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. tions and children’s adjustment. American Paquette, D. (2004). Theorizing the father-child rela- Psychologist, 53, 167 – 184. tionship: Mechanisms and developmental out- Kagel, S. A., & Schilling, K. A. (1985). Sexual iden- comes. Human Development, 47, 193 – 219. tification and gender identity among father-absent Patterson, C. J., Hurt, S., & Mason, C. D. (1998). males. Sex Roles, 13, 357 – 370. Families of the lesbian baby boom: Children’s con- Kirkpatrick, M., Smith, C., & Roy, P. (1981). Les- tact with grandparents and other adults. Journal of bian mothers and their children: A comparative Orthopsychiatry, 68, 390 – 399. survey. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, Popenoe, D. (1996). Life without father: Compelling 545 – 551. new evidence that fatherhood and marriage are Lesbian Mothers and Male Involvement 365

indispensable for the good of children and society. culinity: Clinical implications of gender role strain. New York: Free Press. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Powell, B., & Downey, D. B. (1997). Living in 33, 361 – 369. single-parent households: An investigation of Stacey, J. (1997). In the name of the family: Rethink- the same-sex hypothesis. American Sociological ing modern values in the postmodern age. Boston: Review, 62, 521 – 539. Beacon Press. Ray, V., & Gregory, R. (2001). School experiences Stacey, J., & Biblarz, T. J. (2001). (How) Does the of the children of lesbian and gay parents. Family sexual orientation of parents matter? American Matters, 59, 28 – 35. Sociological Review, 66, 159 – 183. Ruddick, S. (1992). Thinking about fathers. In B. Tauber, M. A. (1979). Sex differences in parent-child Thorne & M. Yalom (Eds.), Rethinking the family: interaction styles during a free-play session. Child Some feminist questions (pp. 176 – 190). Boston: Development, 50, 981 – 988. Northeastern University Press. Teti, D. M., Bond, L. A., & Gibbs, E. D. (1988). Ryan-Flood, R. (2005). Contested heteronormativities: Mothers, fathers, and siblings: A comparison of Discourses of fatherhood among lesbian parents in play styles and their influence upon infant cogni- Sweden and Ireland. Sexualities, 8,189–204. tive development. International Journal of Behav- Seil, D. (2000). Some developmental issues in gender ioral Development, 11, 415 – 432. identity disorders. Gender & Psychoanalysis, 5, Thorne, B. (1992). Feminism in the family: Two 359 – 368. decades of thought. In B. Thorne & M. Yalom Sigal, J., & Nally, M. (2004). Cultural perspectives (Eds.), Rethinking the family: Some feminist ques- on gender. In M. Paludi (Ed.), Praeger guide to tion (pp. 3 – 30). Boston: Northeastern University the psychology of gender (pp. 27 – 40). Westport, Press. CT: Praeger. Wardle, L. D. (1997). The potential impact of homo- Silverstein, L. B., & Auerbach, C. F. (1999). Decon- sexual parenting on children. University of Illinois structing the essential father. American Psycholo- Law Review, 833 – 919. gist, 54, 397 – 407. Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, Silverstein, L. B., Auerbach, C. F., & Levant, R. F. gays, kinship. New York: Columbia University (2002). Contemporary fathers reconstructing mas- Press.