Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Department of Education, University of Amsterdam, Wibautstraat 4, 1091 GM, The Netherlands
1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: hbos{at}educ.uva.nl
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: lesbian mothers/parenthood motives/planned lesbian families
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
In the literature, two-mother families in which the child was born to the lesbian relationship are characterized as planned lesbian mother families (Flaks et al., 1995). In this relatively new family type, the two lesbian mothers (the biological mother and the social mother) planned their children together. This in contrast to lesbian families where children were born in a formerly heterosexual relationship. In The Netherlands, where this study was carried out, among heterosexual families almost every baby is planned, or at least not born unwanted. Fertility behaviour in The Netherlands is well regulated, unwanted pregnancies are rare, and contraception is widely available and its use is widespread (Bonsel and Van der Maas, 1994
; Latten and Cuijvers, 1994
).
It is difficult to say how many lesbian parents there are (Patterson and Friel, 2000). In most Western industrialized countries the total number of lesbians who have given birth to a child within a lesbian relationship amounts to several thousands; however, this is an estimate. Probably, the majority of the parents in planned lesbian families became pregnant through donor insemination (Patterson and Chan, 1999
). Lesbian women, for example, can be impregnated at an AIDs clinic with sperm from a donor. In The Netherlands almost all fertility clinics offer insemination services or IVF to unmarried women, including lesbians. There are, however, some Dutch clinics that refuse to provide such a service to lesbians or single parents (Commissie Gelijke Behandeling, 2000
; de Graaf and Sandfort, 2001
). Other lesbian couples opt for self-insemination using sperm provided by a male friend or relative. The present investigation was unique in that it focused on a large group of planned lesbian families, consisting of lesbian couples who attended a fertility clinic in order to become pregnant as well as lesbian couples who opted for self-insemination.
There is a body of literature that presents speculations about the motives behind human procreation in heterosexual relationships. Some authors attach great importance and great value to biological drives (Benedek, 1970a; b
). From a psychoanalytic perspective, motherhood is viewed as essential for women to develop a female identity. From a feminist perspective, however, the desire to have a child has been seen as a consequence of social enforcement, and motherhood has often been criticized as a barrier to personal development and freedom (for an overview see Thompson, 2002
). Early feminist critics also associated new reproductive technologies with the glorification of traditional motherhood (Hammer, 1984
; Rowland, 1984
; Corea, 1985
). Others, however, saw these technologies as a means to facilitate lesbian parenting and to break down compulsory heterosexuality (Arditti et al., 1989
).
Traditionally research into the motives for wanting children has been centred on a costbenefit model (Fawcett, 1972; 1978
; Fawcett et al., 1972
; Hoffman, 1972
; Hoffman and Hoffman, 1973
; Seccombe, 1991
). The underlying basis of this model is that people decide to have a child, or a further child, after weighing up the pros and cons of having children. Perceived costs seldom deter a woman from wanting a first child (Knijn, 1986
; van Balen and Trimbos-Kemper, 1995
), but might be an important factor in the decision about the upper limit of the number of children she wishes to have (Hoffman and Manis, 1979
). Therefore, it is important to study parenthood motives from the perspective of why couples value becoming parents (van Balen and Trimbos-Kemper, 1995
). In recent years a number of studies have been carried out from this perspective; however, there have been no follow-up studies on parenthood motives. Of particular interest are studies of couples that become parents after assisted reproduction (van Balen and Trimbos-Kemper, 1995
; Colpin et al., 1998
; Langdridge et al, 2000
). The underlying reason for studying parenthood motivation and the strength of desire to have children was that these aspects are supposed to effect parenting and the relationship between parent and child (Levy, 1970
). Lesbian mothers also have the experience of assisted reproduction help; however, parenthood motives and desire have been addressed only sporadically among lesbian mothers. The purpose of the present research was to expand what is known about parenthood motivation in planned lesbian families. The previous study is exceptional because it examined reasons for parenthood among a large group of planned lesbian families and compared these reasons with those of heterosexual families. In order to decrease the possible confounding aspects of infer tility, a comparison was made with heterosexual families with naturally conceived children.
In the transition to parenthood, lesbian women are confronted with questions, sometimes critical ones, posed by their family, friends and other people in their environment (e.g. colleagues) about their motives for having a child. Lesbian women are therefore stimulated to reflect on their desire to have children and to think, and rethink, about their motives for wanting children more often than fertile heterosexual parents are. Lesbian women who opt for donor spermatozoa in a hospital have to undergo an extensive intake interview with a counsellor about their reasons for wanting to become a parent. In this respect, lesbian women are in a situation similar to that of infertile heterosexual couples, who also have to explain their decision to family, friends and counsellors. One would thus expect that lesbian couples, like infertile couples, spend more time on the thought process (reflection) concerning their desire to have a child than do fertile heterosexual couples.
Another aspect of the transition to parenthood is the strength of desire to have children. Until now, there have been no studies of the intensity of the desire to have children among lesbian couples, and whether this desire is stronger than that of fertile heterosexual couples. It is thought that lesbian couples go to very great lengths to pursue their desire to have a child, and that this desire is very strong among lesbian women. For most lesbian women, becoming pregnant is a more complex matter than it is for fertile heterosexual couples, because lesbian women do not become pregnant by having sex with their partner. For lesbians who want to become pregnant through self-insemination it is difficult to find a sperm donor, and lesbians who have decided to go to a fertility clinic are often confronted with a long waiting list. It is assumed that through these circumstances the intensity of the desire for a child is stronger among lesbian parents compared with heterosexual parents.
In summary, the aim of this study was to investigate the motives behind parenthood, the thought process (reflection) involved in the desire to have a child and the strength of desire in lesbian parents, and to compare these aspects with heterosexual parents with no history of fertility problems. In addition, the study looked at the relationship between reflection, the strength of desire and the motives for having children.
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Recruitment and responses
The planned lesbian family group was recruited by several methods: through a medical centre for artificial insemination (response rate 41.9%; n = 18 couples); through a mailing list for gay and lesbian parents (response rate 78.3%; n = 47 couples); and with the help of individuals with expertise in the area of gay and lesbian parenting (response rate 45.3%; n = 34 couples). In addition, an advertisement was placed in a lesbian magazine. The total response for the lesbian family group was 55.6% (n = 99). Only one family responded on the advertisement.
Some respondents of the group of heterosexual families were randomly drawn from the population register of two cities. Others were contracted with the help of schools and by means of referrals from participants in the lesbian family group. The total response rate was 21.4% (population register offices 17.3%; professional contacts 24.1%; and referrals 38.7%). Using this procedure we obtained a pool of 251 heterosexual families. From this pool, 100 families were selected because they matched with the lesbian mother families on, for example, urbanization (population registration offices 42 families; professional contacts 49 families; and referrals nine families).
There were differences between the overall response rate of the lesbian family group and that of the heterosexual family group (55.6 and 21.4% respectively).
Based on the findings of previous research (Brewaeys et al., 1993; Wendland et al., 1996
; Jacob et al., 1999
) we also expected that the response rate among lesbian families would be higher than among heterosexual families. The relatively high response rate in the lesbian family group may be associated with curiosity among lesbian couples on the topic of this study. For these lesbian couples that are recruited through the infertility clinic, a feeling of obligation to do something in return for the medical assistance they had received might have been an important reason for deciding to participate in the study. The response rate in our study among heterosexual families was low, however, comparable with the response rate of other Dutch studies on family issues (Brinkman, 2000
; de Leeuw and De Heer, 2002
).
Measures
Data concerning parenthood motivations, the time parents had spent thinking about the reasons for having children (reflection) and the desire to have a child (strength of desire) were collected by means of a questionnaire. The instruments in this study have been used in previous research on parenthood motives among involuntary childless couples (van Balen and Trimbos-Kemper, 1995), in research where IVF mothers were compared with mothers who conceived in a traditional way (Colpin et al., 1998
), and in research among female university students who did not yet have children (Gerson, 1983
). All questions about parenthood motives, reflection and the strength of desire to have a child referred to the first child.
Parenthood motives. The Parenthood Motivation List (van Balen and Trimbos-Kemper, 1995) was used to measure the motives for having a child. Six motives were distinguished in this self-report questionnaire: (1) happiness; (2) motherhood/fatherhood; (3) well-being; (4) identity; (5) continuity; and (6) social control. Happiness referred to the expected feelings of affection and happiness in the relationship with children (e.g. Children make me happy). Motherhood/fatherhood referred to the expectation that parenthood will provide life-fulfilment (e.g. Experience pregnancy/birth). Well-being referred to the expected positive effects for the family relationship (e.g. Makes life complete). Identity referred to the desire to have children as a means of achieving adulthood and identity strengthening (e.g. Sign of being grown up). Continuity referred to the desired affective relation with grown-up children and the wish to live on after death through ones children (e.g. To continue living). Social control referred to implicit or explicit pressure from outside the couple to procreate (e.g. Is expected by others). Each dimension consisted of three items and respondents were asked to rate the importance of each item at the moment they first thought about realizing their desire to have children. Responses were rated, on a three-point scale (1 = not important to 3 = very important). In the present study Cronbachs alpha for happiness, motherhood/fatherhood and well-being were good (
= 0.62, 0.60 and 0.65, respectively). Cronbachs alpha on identity, continuity, and social control were just sufficient (
= 0. 52, 0.50 and 0.50, respectively).
Reflection. To measure the thought process (reflection) involved in the process of deciding to have children, we inquired about how often parents had thought about the reasons for having children (1 = never, 3 = often).
Strength of desire to have children. The strength of the parents desire to have children (intensity of desire) was assessed on a six-point Likert scale. The following question was asked: What were you willing to give up in order to have children? (1 = it didnt really matter to me, 6 = more than anything). The respondents were also asked to compare the strength of their desire to have children with the strength of their partners desire.
Subjects
A total of 100 lesbian mother families and 100 heterosexual families with no history of fertility problems participated in this study. Because all questions about parenthood motives, reflection and the strength of desire to have a child referred to the first child, we defined the biological mother of the first child in the lesbian family as the lesbian biological mother, and the other mother in the lesbian family as the lesbian social mother. Only a minority (33%) of the social mothers of the first child had later given birth to a further child. The majority of the lesbian couples (58%) applied to an AIDs clinic and used sperm from an anonymous (45%) or identifiable donor (13%). Nearly half of the lesbian couples (42%) opted for self-insemination.
Most families in our study, both lesbian mother and heterosexual parent families, lived in an urban area (91 and 94%, respectively). The mean age of the lesbian biological mothers at the time the first child was born was significantly higher than that of the heterosexual mothers (lesbian mothers: mean 34.6 years, SD 3.32; heterosexual mothers: mean 31.6 years, SD 3.84; P < 0.001). The lesbian social mothers mean age at the time of birth of the first child was significantly higher than that of the heterosexual fathers (lesbian mothers: mean 35.4 years, SD 6.03; heterosexual fathers: mean 33.3 years, SD 3.85; P < 0.01).
No significant difference was found between the family types with regard to educational level and mean duration of the relationship. In both groups, most parents (75.5%) had studied at a higher professional or academic level. The mean duration of the couples relationship was 14.9 years for the lesbian couples (SD 3.87) and 14.8 years (SD 4.89) for the heterosexual couples.
Statistical analysis
To test for differences between lesbian parents and heterosexual parents on the transition to parenthood, multivariate ANOVAs were performed with parenthood motives, reflection and desire as dependent variables, and family type as an independent variable. When Wilks criterion was significant, a series of one-way ANOVAs was carried out in order to compare lesbian biological mothers with heterosexual mothers, and lesbian social mothers with heterosexual fathers.
Demographic information about the sample showed that lesbian families and heterosexual families differed on the parental age at the time the first child was born. Therefore, when one-way ANOVAs showed a significant difference between lesbian biological mothers and heterosexual mothers, or between lesbian social mothers and heterosexual fathers, the initial group comparisons was followed by an ANOVA with parental age at the time the first child was born as a covariate.
To assess the relationship between reflection, the strength of desire and the motives for having children, correlation coefficients (Pearsons product moment correlation, r) were calculated between these studied variables separately for lesbian mothers (both biological and social) and heterosexual parents (both fathers and mothers).
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
No significant differences were established between lesbian social mothers and heterosexual fathers on the motive parenthood. On the other hand, they differ significantly from each other on the motives happiness, well-being, continuity, identity development and social control (Table I). For lesbian social mothers, happiness was a significantly more important motive than it was for fathers [F(1, 3.35) = 15.88, P < 0.001]. Nevertheless, well-being [F(1, 2.46) = 7.65, P < 0.01], continuity [F(1, 1.09) = 6.76, P < 0.01], identity development [F(1, 2.22) = 11.55, P < 0.01] and social control [F(1, 0.38) = 6.05, P < 0.01] were less important motives for lesbian social mothers than they were for fathers. These differences remained significant after controlling for the age of the parent at the time of the birth of the first child [happiness: F(1, 3.43) = 16.21, P < 0.001; well-being: F(1, 1.70) = 5.33, P < 0.05; continuity: F(1, 0.79) = 4.93, P < 0.01; identity development: F(1, 1.71) = 8.92, P < 0.001; social control: F(1, 0.35) = 5.51, P < 0.01].
Within lesbian families, the biological mothers of the first child differed significantly from the social mothers on the motives happiness, parenthood and continuity: these motives were more important for the former than for the latter group [happiness; t(99) = 2.11, P < 0.05; parenthood: t(98) = 3.66, P < 0.001; continuity: t(98) = 2.91, P < 0.01]. Being the social mother of the first child does not mean that this woman is not the biological mother from one or more of the other children born to the relationship later on. In comparison to those social mothers who did not became a biological mother, parenthood and continuity were significantly more important for those social mothers who became a biological mother for the second or third child (parenthood: mean 2.50, SD 0.51 versus mean 1.98, SD 0.56, P < 0.001; continuity: mean 1.44, SD 0.38 versus mean 1.27, SD 0.34, P < 0.05).
Mothers in heterosexual families differed significantly from fathers in that for mothers happiness and parenthood were more important as a motive than they were for fathers [happiness: t(98) = 2.94, P < 0.01; parenthood: t(98) = 3.81, P < 0.001].
Reflection. Univariate ANOVAs between lesbian biological mothers and heterosexual mothers, and between lesbian social mothers and heterosexual fathers, on the time they had spent thinking about the reasons for having children (reflection) revealed significant differences (see Table I). Lesbian biological mothers and lesbian social mothers had spent significantly more time on this process than had heterosexual mothers and heterosexual fathers, respectively [lesbian biological mothers versus heterosexual mothers: F(1, 12.00) = 36.64, P < 0.001; lesbian social mothers versus heterosexual fathers: F(1, 7.26) = 23.60, P < 0.001]. After controlling for parents age (at the time the first child was born) these differences remained significant for the former and for the latter comparison [F(1, 7.86) = 24.27, P < 0.001 and F(1, 7.74) = 25.59, P < 0.001, respectively].
We also analysed whether parents within lesbian families, and parents within heterosexual families, differ from each other on reflection. Within lesbian families, biological mothers of the first child had spent significantly more time thinking about the reasons for wanting children than their partners had [t(97) = 2.21, P < 0.05]; in heterosexual families mothers and fathers did not differ significantly from each other on this aspect. On reflection, social mothers in lesbian families who later became pregnant with a further child did not differ significantly from those mothers who did not became a biological mother at all.
Strength of desire to have children. With respect to the strength of desire to have children, lesbian biological mothers differ significantly from heterosexual mothers (see Table I). The mean score of the lesbian biological mothers on the six-point Likert scale measuring the strength of desire was significantly higher than the mean score for heterosexual mothers [F(1, 27.38) = 25.22, P < 0.001[. This effect remained significant after controlling for the parents age at the time the first child was born [F(1, 28.52) = 26.35, P < 0.001].
Analysis also indicated that lesbian social mothers and heterosexual fathers differ significantly from each other on the intensity of the desire to have a child (see Table I). In comparison to heterosexual fathers, the mean score among lesbian social mothers on desire was significantly higher [F(1, 24.11) = 20.49, P < 0.001]. The differences remained significant after controlling for the age of the parent at the time the first child was born [F(1, 28.41) = 6.05, P < 0.05].
Furthermore, within lesbian families the strength of desire to have children was significantly higher for the biological mother than it was for the social mother of the first child [t(99) = 2.11, P < 0.05]. On the strength of desire, social mothers in lesbian families who later became pregnant with a further child did not differ significantly from those mothers who did not became a biological mother at all. Within heterosexual families, the parents did not differ from each other on desire. The strength of desire to have children among mothers in heterosexual families was not significantly greater than among fathers in heterosexual families.
Lesbian biological mothers and lesbian social mothers did not significantly differ from mothers and fathers in heterosexual families, with respect to how respondents compared their own desire with that of their partner (see Figure 1). However, there were significant differences between biological and social mothers in lesbian families, as well as between mothers and fathers in heterosexual families: 19% of the lesbian biological mothers experienced their own desire to have children as being stronger than their partners desire, in comparison with 2.1% of the lesbian social mothers. Only 3.1% of the biological mothers in lesbian families versus 16.5% of the social mothers perceived their own desire as being weaker [2(2) (n = 195) = 22.71, P < 0.001]. Among the social mothers of the first child, there were no significant differences on this aspect between those mothers who are and those who are not the biological mother of one of the other children.
|
In addition, the mutual assessment of the desire to have a child was analysed. In 84.5% of the lesbian families and in 79.3% of the heterosexual families there is a similarity between the perceptions of the strength of the child wish between both partners.
Relation between reflection, the strength of desire and motives
Reflection and strength of desire. For lesbian parents (both the biological and the social mother), an intense desire to have children correlated with a high level of reflection (biological mothers: r = 0.27, P < 0.01; social mothers: r = 0.32, P < 0.001). Among heterosexual parents (both mothers and fathers), no significant correlation between reflection and strength of desire was found.
Motives and reflection. Table II shows the correlation between parenthood motives and reflection for lesbian mothers (both biological and social) and for heterosexual parents (both mothers and fathers). For lesbian mothers (both biological and social), the most important parenthood motives were significantly correlated with reflection. The more important were the motives happiness and parenthood, the more time they had spent thinking about the reasons for having children. For lesbian biological mothers, well-being was also significantly correlated with reflection. The more important this motive, the more time lesbian biological mothers had spent on reflecting about having children. In addition, for lesbian mothers (both biological and social) no significant correlation was found between the less important motives (identity development, continuity and social control) and reflection.
|
Motives and strength of desire. Table II also shows the correlation between parenthood motives and the strength of desire to have a child. For lesbian biological mothers, the strength of this desire was significantly correlated with the motive parenthood. The more important this motive, the stronger the desire to have children. For lesbian biological mothers, no significant correlations were obtained between the strength of desire and any of the other five motives. For lesbian social mothers and for fathers in heterosexual families, the strength of desire was significantly correlated with the motives happiness, parenthood and well-beingthe three most important motives for this group. The more important these motives were for lesbian social mothers and heterosexual fathers, the stronger the desire to have a child. Among mothers in the heterosexual comparison group it appeared that only identity development was not significantly correlated with the desire to have children. However, the more importance these mothers attached to such motives as happiness, motherhood, well-being, continuity and social control, the stronger the intensity of desire to have children.
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Before discussing and interpreting the results, it should be mentioned that the educational level of the planned lesbian families involved in this study is high. However, several studies have shown that lesbian women tend to be more highly educated (McCandlish, 1987; Steckel, 1987
; Johnson et al., 1994
; Patterson, 1994
; Flaks et al., 1995
; Sandfort, 1998
). The high educational level among lesbian mothers might be associated with the pioneers position planned lesbian families have in society. The educational level of the heterosexual families involved in this study is also relatively high. An over-representation of respondents with a high level of education in mail surveys has been found before (e.g. Siemiatycki, 1979
; Picavet, 2001
). In our study an over-representation of respondents with a high level of education was found in both family types, and therefore the groups were comparable to each other on this aspect.
An important limitation of the present study is that parenthood motives, reflection on parenthood motives and the strength of desire to have children were studied retrospectively. According to Crespi (2001), most lesbian couples decide to have children many years before they actually take any action. It is probable that the analytic decision making (e.g. seeking a donor) and the experiences of reproductive assistance (long waiting lists and a conception process that costs more time to get pregnant than natural conception) might influence the scores of the lesbian mothers on the questionnaires.
In this study, lesbian mothers were significantly older than heterosexual parents at the time they had their first child. There are several reasons to expect that having children at a later age is a characteristic that is more or less bound to lesbian parenthood. For example, lesbian couples who have decided to have children are confronted with having to seek a sperm donor and long waiting lists in infertility clinics. Also, the actual conception process is more time-consuming than natural conception. Therefore, when significant difference between lesbian parents and heterosexual parents occurred, we also carried out an ANOVA with parental age at the time the first child was born as a covariate.
In this study, the hierarchy of parenthood motives of lesbian parents was quite similar to those of heterosexual parents. Lesbian parents (both biological and social mothers) and heterosexual parents (both mothers and fathers) scored relatively high on such motives as happiness and parenthood, and relatively low on social control. Research on motives for parenthood among involuntarily childless couples (van Balen and Trimbos-Kemper, 1995) and IVF mothers (Colpin et al., 1998
) revealed similar findings concerning the hierarchy of motives. Just like among fertile heterosexual parents, happiness and parenthood were the most frequently mentioned motive category, and motives such as continuity of family name were seldom given (Weeda, 1989
). Even though those studies concerned a different group, the similar hierarchy is not surprising. In Western societies motivations are part of the realm of an expression of personal development and involve notions of the unique parentchild relationship. Motives that express the interest of the group, social pressure, continuity or heredity are less important nowadays in Western societies (van Balen and Inhorn, 2002
).
Although the order of the motives was quite similar for lesbian parents and heterosexual parents, one motive (e.g. happiness) was more important and most other motives were less important for the former than they were for the latter group. It reasonable that for lesbian parents, who had made an active decision to have a child and who had gone through years of procedures and waiting, happiness as a motive is more important, because this motive might be more explicit and manifest for them than for fertile heterosexuals. Nonetheless, most other motives were less important for lesbian parents than for the control group of heterosexual parents. Motherhood identity as an important aspect of achieving adulthood might be less important for lesbian women than for heterosexual women (fertile and infertile) because lesbian women experience achieving adulthood as the integration of their lesbian identity into a positive understanding of self. Identity motives also refer to gender roles, and these motives are less important for lesbian women than they are for heterosexual men and women (Lippa, 2000). Furthermore, in society, for a heterosexual woman, the identity of being a mother is still considered to be evidence of her femininity (Morell, 1994
; Ulrich and Weatherall, 2000
). It was also found that for mothers who were social mothers of the first child but who were at the same time also biological mothers of one of the other children in the lesbian relationship, motives such as parenthood and continuity were more important compared with only social mothers. It might be that because of the experience of a pregnancy and the bond with an own biological child the former group valued those parenthood motives as more important than the latter group.
The lesbian biological and social mothers had spent more time thinking about the reasons for wanting to have children (reflection) compared with heterosexual parents, and the strength of desire to have children was also stronger for lesbian mothers. More reflection on their parenthood motives might be a result of the socio-cultural context regarding homosexuality in general and lesbian (and gay) parenthood in particular. de Graaf and Sandfort (2001) observed less favourable attitudes towards lesbian and gay men in their review of 73 research reports from the period 19902000 on the social position of lesbians and gay men in The Netherlands. Regarding parenthood, public opinion holds that a traditional family consisting of heterosexual partners, rather than of lesbian or gay partners, is the ideal environment in which to raise children (van der Avort et al., 1996
; van de Meerendonk and Scheepers, 2003
). As a consequence of this socio-cultural context, for lesbian couples the transition to parenthood is a careful process of weighing options and taking implications into account (Touroni and Coyle, 2002
). Furthermore, although the number of planned lesbian families has been increasing in recent years, parents in lesbian two-mother families are still pioneers in society. It might that because of an awareness of this position, lesbian parents spent more time on the question of why they want to have children. From anecdotal stories and interview studies, it is known that the main concerns of lesbian women in their transition to parenthood are related to the possible negative implications of raising a child in a non-traditional family in a heterosexist and homophobic society (Leiblum et al., 1995
; Gartrell et al., 1996
; Weeks et al., 2001
). Lesbian women are concerned about their childrens possible disadvantage in their relationships outside the family caused by the prejudice they would encounter from their peers (Touroni and Coyle, 2002
). However, research conducted among young adults who grew up in lesbian mother families in the UK has found that as children they were no more likely than the children of a heterosexual mother to have been teased or bullied by peers (Tasker and Golombok, 1997
; Golombok, 2000
).
For lesbian biological and social mothers, but not for heterosexual parents, an intense desire to have children correlated with a high level of reflection, and motives such as happiness and parenthood were significantly and positively correlated with reflection. Lesbian couples, like infertile heterosexual couples, have to go through a long and difficult process before they finally have a child, and the decision to have children is not taken lightly (Gartrell et al., 1996; Touroni and Coyle, 2002
). Several correlations were also found between parenthood motives and the strength of desire to have a child. The more important a motive, the stronger the desire to have a child. In general, the longing for happiness, parenthood feelings and the optimization of well-being correlated significantly with the desire to have a child. For lesbian biological mothers, however, only the motherhood motive (including such items as parental feelings and the experience pregnancy and birth) was significantly positively correlated with the strength of desire to have a child. In this respect, it is interesting that van Balen and Trimbos-Kemper (1995)
also found, in a group of involuntarily childless women, that the expectation that parenthood would provide life-fulfilment was considerably more important.
For professionals who are assisting lesbian couples in decision-making about parenthood, these findings may help professionals to reflect and discuss the desire for children and the meaning of a child with their lesbian clients.
Although there are differences in parenthood motives between lesbian parents and heterosexual parents, we can conclude that hierarchy in parenthood motives in both groups is similar. However, lesbian parents differ from heterosexual parents in that they think more about their motives for having a child, and therefore their desire to have a child is stronger.
![]() |
Acknowledgements |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Benedek, Th. (1970a) The family as a psychological field. In Anthony, E.J. and Benedek, Th. (eds) Parenthood, its Psychology and Psychopathology. Little, Brown & Co., Boston, MA, pp. 109136.
Benedek, Th. (1970b) Fatherhood and providing. In Anthony, E.J. and Benedek, Th. (eds) Parenthood, its Psychology and Psychopathology. Little, Brown & Co., Boston, MA, pp. 195200.
Bonsel, G.J. and Van der Maas, P.J. (1994) Aan de Wieg van de Toekomst; Scenarios voor de Zorg Rondom de Menselijke Voortplanting 19952010. Bohn Staflue Van Loghum, Houten/Diegem.
Botchan, A., Hauser, R., Gamzu, R., Yogev, L., Paz, G. and Yavetz, H. (2001) Results of 6139 artificial insemination cycles with donor spermatozoa. Hum. Reprod., 16, 22982304.
Brewaeys, A., Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, I., Van Steirteghm, A.C. and Devroey, P. (1993) Children from anonymous donors: an inquiry into homosexual and heterosexual parents attitudes. J. Psychosom. Obstet. Gynecol., 14, 2335.[ISI][Medline]
Brinkman, J. (2000) De Vragenlijst. Wolter-Noordhoff, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Colpin, H., de Munter, A. and Vandemeulebroecke, L. (1998) Parenthood motives in IVF-mothers. J. Psychosom. Obstet. Gynecol., 19, 1927.
Commissie Gelijke Behandeling (2000) Onderzoek uit eigen Beweging. CGB, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Corea, G. (1985) The Mother Machine, Reproductive Technology from Artificial Insemination to Artificial Wombs. Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Crespi, L. (2001) And baby makes three: A dynamic look at development and conflict in lesbian families. In Glazer, D.F. and Drescher, J. (eds) Gay and Lesbian Parenting. The Haworth Press, London, UK, pp. 730.
de Graaf, H. and Sandfort, Th. (2001) De Maatschappelijke Positie van Homoseksuele Mannen en Lesbische Vrouwen. RNG, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
de Leeuw, E. and de Heer, W. (2002) Trends in household survey nonresponse: A longitudinal and international comparison. In Groves, R.M., Dillman, D.A., Ekkinghe, J.L. and Little, R.J.A. (eds) Survey Nonresponse. Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 4154.
Fawcett, J.T. (1972) Introduction and summary of workshop discussions and conclusions. In Fawcett, J.T. (ed.) The Satisfaction and Costs of Children: Theories, Concepts and Methods. EastWest Centre Population Institute, Honolulu, HI, pp. 110.
Fawcett, J.T. (1978) The value and cost of the first child. In Miller, W.B. and Newman, L.F. (eds) The First Child and Family Formation. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, pp. 244265.
Fawcett, J.T., Albores, S. and Arnold, F.S. (1972) The value of children among ethnic groups in Hawaii: exploratory measurement. In Fawcett, J.T. (ed.) The Satisfaction and Costs of Children: Theories, Concepts and Methods. EastWest Centre Population Institute, Honolulu, HI, pp. 234259.
Flaks, D.K., Ficher, I., Masterpasqua, F. and Joseph, G. (1995) Lesbians choosing motherhood: A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children. Dev. Psychol., 31, 105114.[CrossRef][ISI]
Gartrell, N., Hamilton, J., Banks, A., Mosbacher, D., Reed, N., Sparks, C.H. and Bishop, H. (1996) The National lesbian family study; Interviews with prospective mothers. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry, 66, 272281.[ISI][Medline]
Gerson, J.M. (1983) A scale of motivation of parenthood: index of parenthood motivation. J. Psychol., 113, 211220.[ISI]
Golombok, S. (2000) Parenting. What Really Counts? Routledge, London, UK.
Hammer, J. (1984) A womb of ones own. Arditti, R., Klein, R.D. and Minden, S. (eds) Test-Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood? Harper Collins, London, UK, pp. 438448.
Hoffman, L.W. (1972) A psychological perspective on the value of children to parents: concepts and measures. In Fawcett, J.T. (ed.) The Satisfaction and Costs of Children: Theories, Concepts and Methods. EastWest Centre Population Institute, Honolulu, HI, pp. 2756.
Hoffman, L.W. and Hoffman, M.L. (1973) The value of children to parents. In Fawcett, J.T. (ed.) Psychological Perspectives on Population. Basic Books, New York, NY, pp. 1976.
Hoffman, L.W. and Manis, D.B. (1979) The value of children in the United States: a new approach to the study of fertility. J. Marriage Fam., 49, 583596.
Jacob, M.C., Klock, S.C. and Maier, D. (1999) Lesbian couples as therapeutic donor insemination recipients: Do they differ from other patients? J. Psychosom. Obstet. Gynecol., 20, 203215.[ISI][Medline]
Johnson, A.M., Wadsworth, J., Wellings, K. and Field, J. (eds) (1994) Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, UK.
Knijn, T. (1986) Motivatie voor moeder- en vaderschap. In Engelen, P. (ed.) Ouderschap in verandering. Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse, The Netherlands, pp. 4355.
Langdridge, D., Connoly, K. and Sheeran, P. (2000) Reasons for wanting a child: A network analytic study. J. Reprod. Infant Psychol., 18, 321338.[ISI]
Latten, J. and Cuijvers, P.F. (1994) Relatie en Gezinsvorming in de Jaren Negentig. CBS/NGR, Den Haag, The Netherlands.
Leiblum, S.R., Palmer, M.G. and Spector, I.P. (1995) Non-traditional mothers: Single heterosexual/lesbian women and lesbian couples electing motherhood via donor insemination. J. Psychosom. Obstet. Gynecol., 16, 1120.[ISI][Medline]
Levy, D.M. (1970) The concept of maternal overprotection. In Anthony, E.J. and Benedek, Th. (eds) Parenthood, its Psychology and Psychopathology. Brown, Little & Co., Boston, MA, pp. 387410.
Lippa, R.A. (2000) Gender-related traits in gay men, lesbian women and heterosexual men and women: The virtual identity of homosexualheterosexual diagnosticity and gender diagnosticity. J. Pers., 68, 899926.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
McCandlish, B. (1987) Against all odds; Lesbian mothers family dynamics. In Bozett, F. (ed.) Gay and Lesbian Parents. Praeger, New York, NY, pp. 2338.
Morell, C.M. (1994) Unwomanly Conduct: The Challenges of Intentional Childlessness. Virago, London, UK.
Morningstar, B. (1999) Lesbian parents: Understanding development pathways. In Laird, J. (ed.) Lesbians and Lesbian Families. Reflection on Theory and Practice. Columbia University Press, New York, NY, pp. 213241.
Out, J. and Zegveld, P. (1977) Motieven voor ouderschap. Vakgroep Klinische Psychologie Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Patterson, C.J. (1994) Children of the lesbian baby boom: Behavioural adjustment, self-concepts and sex-role identity. In Greene, B. and Herek, G. (eds) Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay issues: Vol. 1. Lesbian and Gay Psychology: Theory, Research and Clinical Applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 156175.
Patterson, C.J. (1995) Families of the lesbian baby boom: Parents division of labour and childrens adjustment. Dev. Psychol., 31, 115123.[CrossRef][ISI]
Patterson, C.J. and Chan, R. (1999) Families headed by lesbian and gay parents. In Lamb, M.E. (ed.) Parenting and Child Development in Non-traditional Families. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, pp. 191219.
Patterson, C.J. and Friel, L.V. (2000) Sexual orientation and fertility. In Gillian, R. and Mascie-Taylor, C.G. (eds) Infertility in the Modern World. Present and Future Prospects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 238260.
Picavet, H.S.J. (2001) National health surveys by mail or home interview: effects on response. J. Epidemiol. Community Health, 55, 408413.
Rowland, R. (1984) Reproductive technologies: the final solution to the woman question. In Arditti, R., Klein, R.D. and Minden, S. (eds) Test-Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood? Harper Collins, London, UK, pp. 356369.
Sandfort, Th. (1998) Homosexual and bisexual behaviour in European countries. In Hubert, M., Bajos, N. and Sandfort, Th. (eds) Sexual Behaviour and HIV/AIDS in Europe. UCL Press, London, UK, pp. 68106.
Seccombe, K. (1991) Assessing the costs and benefits of children: gender comparisons among childfree husbands and wives. J. Marriage Fam., 53, 191202.[ISI]
Siemiatycki, J.A. (1979) A comparison of mail, telephone and home interview strategies for household health surveys. Am. J. Public Health, 69, 238245.[Abstract]
Steckel, A. (1987) Psychological development of children of lesbian mothers. In Bozett, F.W. (ed.) Gay and Lesbian Parents. Praeger, New York, NY, pp. 7585.
Tasker, F.L. and Golombok, S. (1997) Growing up in a Lesbian Family. Effects on Child Development. The Guilford Press, London, UK.
Thompson, C.M. (2002) Fertile ground: Feminists theorize infertility. In Inhorn, M.C. and van Balen, F. (eds) Infertility Around the Globe. New Thinking on Childlessness, Gender and Reproductive Technologies. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp. 5278.
Touroni, E. and Coyle, A. (2002) Decision-making in planned lesbian parenting: an interpretative phenomenological analysis. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 12, 194209.[CrossRef][ISI]
Ulrich, M. and Weatherall, A. (2000) Motherhood and infertility. Viewing motherhood through the lens of infertility. Fem. Psychol., 10, 323336.[ISI]
van Balen, F. and Trimbos-Kemper, T.C.M. (1995) Involuntarily childless couples: Their desire to have children and their motives. J. Psychosom. Obstet. Gynecol., 16, 137144.[ISI][Medline]
van Balen, F. and Inhorn, M. (2002) Introduction. Interpreting infertility: A view from the social sciences. In van Balen, F. and Inhorn, M. (eds) Infertility Around the Globe. New Thinking on Childlessness, Gender and Reproductive Technologies. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp. 332.
van de Meerendonk, B. and Scheepers, P. (2003) Denial of equal rights for lesbians and gay men. J. Homosex., in press.
van der Avort A., Cuyvers P. and de Hoog, K. (1996) Het Nederlandse Gezinsleven aan het eind van de Twintigste Eeuw. Nederlandse Gezinsraad, Den Haag, The Netherlands.
Weeda, I. (1989) Enquête moederschap, hoe denken Nederlandse en Opzij- vrouwen over kinderen. Opzij, 8, 2431.
Weeks, J., Heaphy, B. and Donovan, C. (2001) Same Sex Intimacies. Families of Choice and Other Life Experiments. Routledge, London, UK.
Wendland, C.L., Byrn, F. and Hill, C. (1996) Donor insemination: A comparison of lesbian couples, heterosexual couples and single women. Fertil. Steril., 65, 764770.[ISI][Medline]
Weston, K. (1991) Families we Choose: Lesbians, Gays and Kinships. Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
Submitted on February 10, 2003; resubmitted on May 28, 2003; accepted on July 9, 2003.