CAN WOMEN FATHER(TM) AND MEN MOTHER(TM)?

Authors Avatar

                                                                                                  Caroline Wenman

GEN 101

Tutor: Ivan Hill

Assignment 2

CAN WOMEN ‘FATHER’ AND MEN ‘MOTHER’?

CHALLENGING THE  'TRADITIONAL FAMILY’-

HOMOSEXUAL AND LESBIAN PARENTING    

INTRODUCTION

In today’s contemporary society, we now find ourselves being confronted and having to both readily and reluctantly acknowledge the reality and emergence of increasing diverse familial set-ups. For although we have begun to recognise that homosexuals and lesbians now play a prominent role in fatherhood and motherhood, continuing controversy and suspicion surrounds these alternative egalitarian relationships.    

Regrettably systematic homophobic prejudices lay embedded within religious and political bodies alike, which continue to condemn and oppose lesbian and homosexual parenting in their struggle to re-establish the heterosexual institutional ideology of the ‘traditional family’. But given the diverse nature of familial types which are prevalent within our society: fostered, adopted, step, lone parents etc., which are seen to be replacing the so-called ‘traditional family’ (nuclear) ideal (see Sullivan, 1997).

What supporting evidence, if any, exists to corroborate with the opposing religious and political institutions that non-heterosexual parents make less desirable role models than heterosexuals, bearing in mind that domestic violence, and both physical and sexual abuse occurs within heterosexual families?              

Therefore the apparent issue in contention, would seem to be determinant upon one’s sexual identity in relation to what constitutes acceptable parental role models, together with the institutional enforcement of traditional hegemonic norms and values. For gender theorist’s homosexual and lesbian sexual identities are entrenched in essentialism (De Cecco and Parker, 1995), for essentialism is the belief that sexuality and/or gender are determined by features of an individual’s biology or psychology. Whilst in the opposing corner social constructionists rejected these essentialist theories, on the grounds that the homo/hetero and male/female distinctions are themselves cultural constructs subject to constant changes, and that lesbians and homosexuals were the result of historical, cultural and political milieu (Kitzinger, 1987).  

DISCUSSION

Within the essentialist argument, the fundamental issue, which represents the very foundation and stability of our society, is the continued existence of the ‘traditional family’. Which in its familial form is entirely heterosexual in nature, and fails to neither recognise nor accept any non-heterosexual familial forms.

The ‘family’ is a stereotypically patriarchal institution, and its staunch supporters are namely conservative religious and political institutions who condemn the very idea of homosexual and lesbian parenting. The religious argument is that homosexuality and lesbianism is sinful, perverse and unnatural, and that heterosexual conception and child rearing form the grounds of Christian principles.

Therefore lesbian and homosexual parenting is seen as “an insult to nature”, especially when lesbian and homosexuals use joint parenting and donor insemination, for the vagina is “designed” for a penis (Braun & Wilkinson, in press). Therefore the only natural and moral way to have and raise a child is within a heterosexual relationship. For gay parenting is seen as a direct threat to family life, for it not only challenges the biological naturalness of the family. But also attempts to disrupt the “natural order” of our society by affecting the reproduction (decline in birth rate) of our future society, which can be seen to undermine patriarchal authority. For these opposing parties gay parenting should and must be discouraged at all costs, for it is seen to be both detrimental and damaging to the psychological well-being of our children.

Join now!

As Phillips (1999) argues the presence of men in a heterosexual marriage provides the gender balance which children need, since gay parents cannot provide the stability and fidelity which marriage guarantees, and if we were to accept gay parenting, then this would undermine the heterosexual union and be damaging to our children.

Tasker and Golombok (1991, 1983) also supported this ideology by opposing non-heterosexual parenting rights, and argued that gay parents lack the stable relationship that heterosexual marriages guarantees for the lack of balance of male/female role models threatens the psychosexual development and identities of children, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay