| Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 14:54:12 -0400 From: ae606@freenet.carleton.ca (Victoria Edwards) Subject: submission-Childhood paper CHANGING CONCEPTS OF CHILDHOOD by Susan Haslip There has been much debate of late concerning what constitutes a 'family' and whether same-sex couples qualify to be called a 'family'. While the debate rages on, the reality is that gay and lesbian couples, and single gays and lesbians, are raising children. In this paper, I will consider those arguments that have been advanced in support of restricting the definition of 'family' to the nuclear family. I will argue that society's emphasis on the nuclear family as the standard by which others are compared and judged, is an arbitrary standard, which ignores the reality of gay and lesbian families. I will also consider the effects such a restrictive definition of 'family' has on children growing up in gay and lesbian households. What is the definition of a 'family'? Those who hold to the traditional definition argue that a family consists of "one man, one woman raising children within the bounds of marriage". However, a large number of Canadians do not live within traditional families. In addition, between 1970 and 1987, the divorce rate in Canada rose from 18.6 per cent to 43.1 per cent. According to the Statistics Canada survey completed in 1990 entitled "Family and Friends", "half of divorcees aged 30 to 39 and more than one-third of those aged 40 to 49 were living common-law". "Single-parent families, especially mother-led, are prevalent; and increasing number of parents never marry; divorce is common, as is remarraige; significant numbers of families (comprise) a husband and wife with no children at home; lesbians and homosexuals establish long-term and committed relationships, and many are involved in raising and nurturing children". However, while some 'liberal' thinkers are prepared to consider different variations of the traditional family, many are not prepared to broaden any definition of family to include gays and lesbians. Many argue that the term "lesbian mother" is an oxymoron, "as it joins a procreative identity (mother) to a sexual identity (lesbian). As a spokesperson for the group 'Gay Fathers' points out, "in the past our roles as fathers and gay men have been viewed as incompatible, both by society at large and, all too often, by ourselves as well". However, there are children being raised in gay and lesbian households. While Statistics Canada does not collect data on such things, gay activists suggest that there are about 390,000 gay parents in Canada. The surge in lesbian parenting has prompted some to refer to this time as the 'lesbian baby boom'.Gays and lesbians without children at the time they 'come out' encounter "a panapoly of options, including foster care, surrogate parenthood, adoption, coparenting, alternative insemination, and heterosexual sex". There are also many gay and lesbian households raising children from previous heterosexual relationships. Proponets of a more inclusive definition of family argue that the definition of family cannot be narrowly restricted, and that a family "will define itself by its members and their actions - not by a marriage certificate". If, as has been demonstrated, the family is not the 'boring but happy quartet of two parents and two well-adjusted children that politicians are so comfortable espousing the virtues of', why not expand the definition of 'family' to represent the diverse configurations of families presently reflected in society? Those persons who argue for a more formal and/or restrictive definition of family, argue that "...there is a dominant conception of family that has been traditionally enforced by laws and social custom... It is widely understood that the traditional family is one composed of a married man and woman and their children". According to this line of thought, the traditional definition ought to be maintained for the sake of tradition, despite the growing number of familial units that do not fit this limited definition. Proponents of this line of thinking "...not only ignore reality, they serve to exclude large numbers of people from having the rights they deserve..." Historically, there have been many traditions that have been held to be 'sacred', however, for the sake of 'equality', these traditions have had to be discarded. Female public servants, until as recently as 1956, were forced to quit their positions when they were married. The thinking behind this tradition was that once a woman was married, she no longer needed a job. This 'tradition' has been discarded because of gender equality. Traditionally, women have not been considered 'persons' Women have been, and in some cases still are, considered 'property'. It had been 'tradition' that women were not allowed to vote. Until 1960, Native Canadians were not allowed to vote in federal elections. These 'traditions' were discarded because of human rights. It is my contention that a definition of 'family' limited to the traditional nuclear family is a tradition that must also be discarded as it no longer reflects the reality of the families found in society today. In addition, there are certain benefits and rights that come with fitting society's traditional definition of the 'family'. It is my contention that to deny those same rights to families who do not fit this restrictive definition of 'family' is unjust since the distinction is an arbitrary distinction. James Rachels, in the book The Elements of Moral Philosophy, writes, "any moral doctrine that assigns greater importance to the interests of one group than to those of another is unacceotably arbitrary unless there is some difference between the members of the groups that justifies treating them differently". It is my contention that there is no relevant difference between the nuclear family and other forms of family to: (1) justify society holding the nuclear family as superior to all other forms of family nor to justify preferential treatment to those units that fit the restrictive definition of 'family'. Another argument against a more inclusive definition of family is offered by The Salvation Army. This group contends that if society allows for a more inclusive definition of 'family', which includes gay and lesbian families, then society "will begin a slide toward legalized paedophilia and bestiality". One questions how the recognition of diverse family groups is tantamount to legalizing paedophilia and bestiality. One of the myths surrounding homosexuals is the equating of gay men with child molesters. However, as the evidence indicates, upwards of 98 per cent of paedophiles are heterosexual men. The supposed connection The Salvation Army is attempting to make between homosexuality and bestiality is "...nothing short of fea-mongering designed to ignite the homophobia many people already feel". A further argument against a more inclusive definition of family comes from REAL Women. This groups suggests 'that the cost of extending family benefits to more people will put undue economic pressure on the government and taxpayer". These same arguments were used as an attempt to deny benefits to common-law couples and were proven false. However, even if such an argument were true, it is morally reprehensible to deny any group rights or status based upon a price tag. There are some persons who argue that the concept of the traditional family should be discarded altogether since "...the traditional family is dead or at least that it is quickly going out of style". While it may be true that the number of traditional nuclear families is diminishing, there is no reason to doubt that there will always exist some percentage of the population that fits the current restrictive definition of 'family'. It appears to me that it would be rather hypocritical to argue for a more inclusive definition of family that would disregard the traditional status of some families. It is my contention that the traditional definition of family no longer reflects the realities of a considerable number of Canadian households. In fact, one questions whether such a definition of 'family' ever reflected the daily reality of a large number of households. Historically, there have been various forms of 'family', but the concept of the traditional family is relatively new, dating to the 18th century. However, even in the time since the conception of the 'traditional family', this nucleus has been ravaged by death, disease and war. To deny these households the status of 'family' and the ensuing benefits that go with this status is injust and based on an arbitrary distinction. Despite the debate concerning what constitutes a family, gay and lesbians couples, and single gays and lesbians, are raising children. What effect will such a restrictive definition of 'family' have on the children of growing up in gay and lesbian households? Children want to talk about their families like their peers do, and it is difficult for children to keep secrets about their family. However, due to the stigma attached to gay men and lesbians as being child molesters, evil, immoral etc., many parents while they are 'out' to their children, fear recrimination if anyone else finds out about their lifestyle. "The long history of state interventions into relationships between lesbians, gay men, and their children has supplied ample reasons for them to approach parenting with a healthy regard for tactical considerations. Custody battles remain a major concern. Former spouses, parents, and grandparents are the most frequent plaintiffs in custody cases that involve lesbians and gay men; such suits typically cite the parent's 'lifestyle' as detrimental to the chld or contest a lover's status as parent if the child's biological mother or father dies". Gay and lesbian parents are forced by society to remain in the closet, and in many instances, their children are also dragged into that closet. Many lesbians and gays know all too well the pressure to give the appearance of 'normalcy' and the importance of being accepted by the straight world. In many cases, employment opportunities, housing, child custody, etc. have forced gays and lesbians to live double lives, and use gender 'neutral' names i.e. Chris, when referring to a room-mate. There is every reason to presuppose that children also need to be accepted by their peers. Many children hear words such as 'faggot', 'dyke' etc tossed about the playground know that their father or mother's same-sex partner is the 'fag' or 'dyke' that their peers are ridiculing. A child who defends someone being verbally attacked with such names runs the risk of being labelled by the same names. At a time when peer acceptance is perceived as important, this can be devastating. The result is that many children of gay and lesbian parents taunt others with these names in order to throw suspicion from themselves. While these so-called 'harmless' insults are often tossed about the playground and are not directed at any one child, often such comments are made in front of adults. By the silence of adults in the face of such comments, children are given the impression that such terms as 'faggot' and 'dyke' are acceptable when used to insult one another. Consider the fictional classroom depicted in the book "How Would You Feel If Your Dad Was Gay?" In this book, there is a scene in a classroom where the students are busy making Father's Day cards. One young girl named 'Jasmine', caught up in her excitement of making a card for her three dads, says "My real dad's gay. My brother and I live with him and his lover, Andrew, half of the time. The rest of the time we live with our mama and her new husband. That makes three dads!" The teacher said nothing to silence the comments that followed: "Jasmine's dad is a faggot"; "it; so gross, two men kissing each other" and "I'm glad my father isn't a sissy". However, as Jasmine's father shares with the principle, "allowing kids to be put down because their folks are gay is just as bad as letting kids get put down 'cause they're black". Another writer notes, "the language and humor of homophobia, like any ethnic slur, cease to be acceptable when one has felt their impact and pain." Often, children raised in homes of gays and lesbians will experience a conflict in values respect for each other. However, why is it acceptable, or permitted, to allow anyone to make such hurtful comments about the children of lesiban and gay households? Children are taught that society values truth-telling. Children are taught not to lie, yet what is a child to do when questioned about the same-sex partner of his/her father/mother? Children are often questioned by grandparents, other relatives or family friends regarding the nature of the parents' relationship. Children are also taught to respect their elders, yet this is difficult to do when one parent is attempting to ascertain the 'truth' about a relationship in order to use this information to fight for custody. One child writes, "I think he is trying to make us think being gay is bad and turn us against our mother. But it's not working. ... I'm thirteen and I can accept it-and I could accept it when I was six. And he is thirty-six and he can't accept it? Well, it makes me wonder about his brains". How does a child deal with anti-gay sentiment? As one gay father notes, "it's hard enough for an adult; it's quite a trip to lay on a kid". Children feel that they must keep a secret, but at times this likely gets to be too much? Where are children to turn? One child writes, "No one outside our family knows about my mom, just her friends. I consider this a really big secret. I don't feel like anyone is trustworthy. I don't think that if my best friend knew, she would ever come over to spend the night". Writes another, "I thought of going to the school counselor to talk about things, but I worried about him telling my teachers. I think if the teachers knew about my mom, they would treat me different. I think they would gossip about me. I wouldn't like that. Maybe I'd like to talk to someone not connected to my school, but it doesn't really hurt me not talking to anyone. I've done it for all these years". Societal institutions, for the most part, presippose heterosexuality as the norm. Children of gays and lesbian parents have limited avenues to see their reality reflected. The presupposition of heterosexuality is evidenced in the forms children have to fill out or that need to be taken home to have 'mom or dad' sign it. Alternative families are ignored, for the most part, and are rarely reflected in the media, in books read in schools and in greeting cards (with the exception of alternative greeting cards). However, many gay and lesbian children find their reality in interacting with children of other gays and lesbians; such interacting is helpful as the children and parents know that they are not alone. Many critics of gay and lesbian families question "how can you knowingly saddle a child with the stigma of gay and lesbian parents?" However, it should be noted that this same argument has been used to 'attempt to deny children to the poor, the racially oppressed and members of all other groups not assigned to the mythical mainstream of society'. There are many concerns that face the children of gay and lesbian parents. One of the more crucial concerns among psychologists is "whether a child's self-esteem suffers from being different and secretive, and whether the child will experience gender confusion". Dr. Martha Kirkpatrick, a Los Angeles psychiatrist, compared children of straight and lesbians mothers in the five to twelve year old range. Dr. Kirkpatrick found "no significant psychological difference". Dr. Susan Bradley, psychiatrist-in-chief at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, notes that "most kids of gay parents do not have gender disorders, and most kids with gender disorders don't have gay parents". There have been some positive observances made concerning children raised in gay and lesbian households. While it is likely that children of gays and lesbians would still experience difficulties if a more inclusive definition of family was proposed tomorrow, it is likely that a more inclusive definition of family would make it easier for children of alternative households to share their experiences. ENDNOTES 1. Herrington, Doug, "Court needs to bring family up to date", The Ottawa Citizen, (February 24th, 1993), p. A9. 2. Viskupic, Gary, "What Exactly is a Canadian Family?", The Globe and Mail, (March, 1993). 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. 5. Weston, Kath, Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), p. 169. 6. Anonymous, Gay Fathers, (Toronto: Gay Fathers of Toronto, 1981), p. 60. 7. Ullyott, Kathy, "My folks are gay", Chatelaine, (November, 1990), p. 103. 8. Weston, Kath, op. cit., p. 168. 9. Ibid., p. 190. 10. Ibid., p. 190. 11. Ibid., p. 167. 12. Herrington, Doug, op. cit., p. A9. 13. Sornberger, Joe, "Family Ways: We change, myths don't", The Ottawa Citizen, (October 11th, 1992), p. B3. 14. Herrington, Doug, op. cit., p. A9. 15. Ibid., p. A9. 16. Ibid., p. A9. 17. Ibid., p. A9. 18. Ibid., p. A9. 19. Rachels, James, The Elements of Moral Philosophy (United States: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1986), pp.77,78. 20. Herrington, Doug, op. cit., p. A9. 21. Weston, Kath, op. cit., p. 167. 22. Herrington, Doug, op. cit., p. A9. 23. Herrington, Doug, "Court needs to bring family up to date", The Ottawa Citizen, (February 24th, 1993), p. A9. 24. Ibid., p. A9. 25. Weston, Kath, Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), pp. 211, 212. 26. Ibid., pp. 211, 212. 27. Ibid., pp. 209, 210. 28. Ibid., pp. 209, 210. 29. Ibid., pp. 209, 210. 30. Ibid., p. 192. 31. Heron, Ann and Maran, Meredith, How Would You Feel If Your Dad Was Gay?, (Boston: Alyson Publications Inc., 1991), p. 6. 32. Ibid., p. 6. 33. Ibid., p. 21. 34. Rafkin, Louise, editor, Different Daughters: A Book by Mothers of Lesbians, (Pittsburgh and San Fransisco: Cleis Press, 1987), p. 146. 35. Rafkin, Louise, editor, Different Mothers: Sons and Daughters of Lesbians Talk about their Lives, (Pittsburgh and San Fransisco: Cleis Press, 1990), p. 42. 36. Ibid., p. 38. 37. Ibid., p. 39. 38. Weston, Kath, op. cit., p. 195. 39. Ibid., p. 195. 40. Ullyott, Kathy, "My folks are gay", Chatelaine, (November, 1990), p. 107. 41. Ibid., p. 107. 42. Ibid., p. 107 43. Rafkin, Louise, editor, Different Mothers: Sons and Daughters of Lesbians Talk about their Lives, op. cit., p. 17. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anonymous. Gay Fathers. Toronto: Gay Fathers of Toronto, 1981. Heron, Ann and Maran, Meredith. How Would You Feel If Your Dad Was Gay? Boston: Alyson Publications Inc., 1991. Herrington, Doug. "Court needs to bring family up to date". The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa: February, 1993. Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. United States: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1986. Rafkin, Louise. Editor. Different Daughters: A Book by Mothers of Lesbians. Pittsburgh and San Fransisco: Cleis Press, 1987. Rafkin, Louise. Editor. Different Mothers: Sons and Daughters of Lesbians Talk about their Lives. Pittsburgh and San Fransisco: Cleis Press, 1990. Sornberger, Joe. "Family ways: we change, myths don't". The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa: October, 1992. Ullyott, Kathy. "My folks are gay". Chatelaine. November, 1990. Viskupic, Gary. "What Exactly is a Canadian Family?" The Globe and Mail. Toronto: March, 1993. Weston, Kath. Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991. The Hebrew word for compassion, rachmin, literally means womb, a new birth, a new start. "Let what was, be gone; what will be, come; what is now, be" Judith Ragir | |
|
