This article was downloaded by: [University of Glasgow] On: 21 December 2014, At: 11:05 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Lesbian Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjls20
The Family Lecture Nancy E. Rose PhD a
California State University, San Bernardino, Economics Department , 5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino , CA , 92407 , USA Published online: 14 Aug 2009.
To cite this article: Nancy E. Rose PhD (2002) The Family Lecture, Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6:3-4, 235-241, DOI: 10.1300/J155v06n03_19 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J155v06n03_19
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 11:05 21 December 2014
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 11:05 21 December 2014
The Family Lecture Nancy E. Rose
SUMMARY. This paper describes a lecture about my extended family, in which I discuss a variety of configurations consisting of lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults, and our children. It raises an array of issues, including alternative insemination, biological and nonbiological parentage, donors and birthmothers, adoption, co-parenting and blended families, significant others, and gay marriage and domestic partnership. It helps many students obtain both a more expansive sense of family and a deeper understanding of homophobia. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: Website: © 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Lesbian and gay families, family values, homophobia This essay is a contribution to the project of teaching about homophobia. In it, I describe what I have come to call the “family lecture,” a discussion of my Nancy E. Rose, PhD, is affiliated with California State University, San Bernardino, Economics Department, 5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino, CA 92407 (E-mail: [email protected]). Author note: I would like to thank my family members for discussions about parts of this essay. Everyone has given their permission to use their first names. For permission to use “The Family Lecture” in your own classroom with my family as an example, contact the author directly. [Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “The Family Lecture.” Rose, Nancy E. Co-published simultaneously in Journal of Lesbian Studies (Harrington Park Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 6, No. 3/4, 2002, pp. 235-241; and: Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses (ed: Elizabeth P. Cramer) Harrington Park Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc., 2002, pp. 235-241. Single or multiple copies of this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800-HAWORTH, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address: [email protected]].
2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
235
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 11:05 21 December 2014
236
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
own extended family that I have been developing over the past decade. It encompasses descriptions of a range of groupings consisting of straight and lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults, and our children. At each step I ask students how they view the constellation–whether they consider it to be a family. Introducing these configurations raises an array of issues, including: alternative insemination; biological and nonbiological parentage; the role of donors and birthmothers in children’s lives; adoption issues, including second-parent adoption, adoption by single adults and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) couples, and transracial adoption; co-parenting, stepparenting, and blended families; the role of significant others (sometimes called fictive kin) and community; and gay marriage and domestic partnership. It works! Most students obtain a more expansive conception of what constitutes a family, and have a broader understanding of a range of other LGBT issues as a result. As the discussion unfolds, students see that most of the issues affect both heterosexual and LGBT parents; indeed, the only issue in this list that solely affects LGBT adults is gay marriage and domestic partnership. As a result, LGBT families become more normalized. Further, students generally can understand gay marriage and domestic partnership as civil rights issues even if they remain stuck about what they perceive to be religious implications. My main purpose in writing this essay is to motivate others to include discussions of LGBT families, including their own, in teaching about homophobia. Many students wedded to idealized notions of family and “family values” do not see us as having real families. If our families are acknowledged at all, they are often seen as oddities, sometimes represented by Hollywood celebrities, but not by “ordinary folks.” I realize that I am lucky in this regard. Both my sister and I are bisexual and my brother is gay, and a variety of configurations exist within my own extended family, making it productive and instructive to use us as a case study. However, increasingly, many of these, and other, situations can be found within our individual networks of family and friends. The family lecture is presented at least halfway through Women’s Studies courses. Thus by the time of the lecture students should have a thorough understanding of sexism and patriarchy, including the importance of homophobia in maintaining gender oppression. Just before the family lecture, I present statistics of changing household configurations in the U.S. over the past few decades. This generally includes: “traditional nuclear” families, i.e., mom, dad, and one or more children under age 18; married couples without children; single adults, both female and male, with and without children; and unmarried adult households, with and without children. Several points emerge in this discussion. One is that the nuclear family is declining while all of the other types of households are increasing. Another is
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 11:05 21 December 2014
Nancy E. Rose
237
that we do not have reliable statistics on LGBT families. The substantial increase in female-headed households is explained by the increase in divorce and in never-married women having children. Along these lines, I also present statistics on the decline in teenage pregnancy and talk about the increase in professional women choosing to have children outside marriage (the Murphy Brown scenario). It is in this context that I first discuss the lesbian baby boom–it is simply one of the ways in which (legally) unmarried women have been becoming mothers. A similar, though much less pronounced, trend exists for unmarried fathers, both heterosexual and gay, who are family heads. Now for the lecture itself. (Imagine this as a power point presentation–each person appears on the screen as a circle and is then connected to the others in their immediate household.) For my purposes in this essay, I will describe the groupings, along with a sociogram of the resultant diagram (Appendix A), and the questions and discussions that arise throughout the lecture. I begin with a (seemingly) heterosexual unmarried couple: myself (Nancy) and then-partner (Heath). Then I add one child (Jesse) and another (Zach). Along the way Heath and I got married. This leads to a brief discussion about cohabitation, and why or why not people choose to marry. I point out that in many countries marriage is not as common as it is in the U.S., and that a couple is considered legally partnered after a given amount of time (e.g., seven years in Australia). This is rather straightforward, however, and everyone agrees that we were a family, especially after we married. Next, Heath and I divorced, with joint physical and legal custody of the boys, who had homes with each of us. Most students continue to see each grouping as a family, although many view the two families as “broken,” reflecting the strength of the idealized notion of the nuclear family. Heath then became unmarried partners with Haile, a situation that can lead to a usually brief discussion of stepparenting. (I’ve remained blessedly single.) I then introduce my sister (Jill), who was partnered with another woman (Annie) when they had their son (Joshua). Asking students whether they see this grouping as a family raises a multitude of issues. However, before we get to those, someone inevitably asks how my sister became pregnant, a question that opens up a far-ranging discussion about alternative insemination. Students are reminded of the increase in infertility and the variety of treatments for it, including sperm and/or egg donors as well as surrogate mothers. Students generally associate infertility with heterosexual couples, in line with its attention in the media over the past few decades; yet it is fairly easily seen as an issue common to both heterosexual and LGBT adults. Returning to the question of how my sister conceived becomes quite easy; it involved no high-tech interventions since she was inseminated at home using a syringe. This sounds relatively uncomplicated by this point.
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 11:05 21 December 2014
238
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
Other questions are predictable as well. One is whether it is “fair” to conceive, and parent, a child without a father. There are several responses. The first, quick one is a reminder of the statistics showing the increase in families headed by single mothers, and the much slighter rise in families headed by single fathers, as a result of divorce or never having been married. It is simply a fact that increasing numbers of children are being raised by one parent. Yet this is typically not the case for children of LGBT adults, as there are often two parents. I also ask the students whether it is fair for children to be raised by abusive parents, and note that these are the children about whom they should be concerned. The most important response to the concern about “fairness” to the children raised by LGBT adults regards how they are doing. Here I discuss the growing body of literature on children raised in LGBT families. The studies show several things, most importantly, that psychologically the children are turning out to be relatively well-adjusted. First, they are wanted and loved; indeed, often elaborate planning goes into their conception and/or adoption. Further, compared to other children, they tend to be more accepting of a range of differences–racial, abilities, as well as sexual orientation. The problems that they encounter with their parent’s sexual orientation are primarily caused by other people’s negative reactions. Another question that often arises has to do with the sexual orientation of children raised by LGBT adults. I respond that the children raised in LGBT families are no more or less likely than anyone else to be LGBT themselves. (Most LGBTs were raised by heterosexual parents, yet this did not affect our sexual orientation.) However, it is likely that our children will be encouraged to explore their sexual orientation, rather than feeling that they need to hide it from their parents. Finally, this segues into a discussion about whether or not the child knows the biological father. I respond that a spectrum of options exists for mothers–from anonymity via a sperm bank, to knowing the father, who can have varying degrees of involvement with the child. Indeed, this decision typically involves a great deal of thought, and sometimes changes after the child’s birth. Further, many children in LGBT families have significant others–“aunts” and “uncles”–who are an ongoing part of their lives. This strand of thought, in turn, moves into a discussion of the importance of family networks in the LGBT community. Indeed, in part since it is not legally sanctioned, there is more purposive creation of extended families. Often we consider each other as kin; for example, Annie has been my sister-in-law since she and Jill were partners. In fact, these extended families, or “family webs,” were the topic of a research project proposed with another sister-in-law, Lynn,
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 11:05 21 December 2014
Nancy E. Rose
239
who became partners with Annie after she and my sister split up (Bravewomon & Rose, 1998). As was the case with my children, Joshua had homes with both my sister and with Annie and Lynn. By this point, it becomes more difficult for students to view the situation of my children, but not that of Joshua, as being part of two families. Eventually we return to the family constellations and the sociogram. After several years, Lynn gave birth to another child (Sam), and Annie subsequently adopted both Joshua and Sam. This leads to an informative discussion of second-parent, same sex adoptions, in which the birthmother is not required to relinquish custody in order for another adult of the same sex to adopt the child. Many students become so eager to understand these machinations that they cease to be as concerned about a child having two women as legal mothers. I then tell them that Annie and Lynn filed as domestic partners, and are as married as possible in California. This leads to a discussion of domestic partnership and gay marriage, during which many students gain some understanding of their implications and importance as civil rights issues, often seeing them as protection for the child. Next we look at my sister’s current partner (Larry) and his two daughters (Chelsey and Simone). This is a modern blended family: all of the children have two homes, as Chelsey and Simone live with Larry and Jill, and with their biological mother and her current husband and their biological child. By this point, many students see this situation as just as complicated as that of Joshua. They often relate to it easily as they know others in similar circumstances, which helps further normalize Joshua’s families. Finally we come to a gay male couple, my brother (Avi) and his partner (Ron). In the early 1980s, Avi was a donor for a lesbian couple (Nan and Lisa, more sisters-in-law), who had a daughter (Aarin). By now the idea of a lesbian couple having a child seems less strange, and does not become the focus of the ensuing conversation. Instead, this leads to a discussion of how much more difficult it is for gay men to parent than it is for lesbians, and of the various ways in which gay men, as well as other adults, both gay and straight, can parent and/or become significant others in the lives of children. Someone often asks about adoption, which leads to the last situation, as Avi and Ron are in the process of adopting a child, or siblings, through the foster care/adoption program. After extensive home visits and certification, they are eagerly awaiting placement. Most likely this will be a transracial adoption, a subject that can lead to a discussion of such adoptions in general. Again, students see that these issues affect both gay and straight adults.
240
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 11:05 21 December 2014
CONCLUSIONS I hope that this essay will encourage others to talk about LGBT families when teaching about homophobia, and to incorporate their own situations in these discussions. It seems to soften students somewhat, and to see LGBT families as more real, rather than as something that only affects people who they don’t know. Although it obviously does not work for everyone, it helps many students further understand homophobia, changing their hearts as well as their minds. REFERENCE Bravewomon, L. & Rose, N.E. (1998) Family webs: A study of extended families in the lesbian/gay/bisexual community. Feminist Economics, 4(2), 107-109.
241
Nancy
Zach
Jesse
Heath
Haile
Lynn
Sam
Annie
Josh
Jill
Simone
Chelsey
Larry
APPENDIX A
Ron
Avi
Nan
Lisa
Aarin
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 11:05 21 December 2014
Journal of Lesbian Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjls20
The Family Lecture Nancy E. Rose PhD a
California State University, San Bernardino, Economics Department , 5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino , CA , 92407 , USA Published online: 14 Aug 2009.
To cite this article: Nancy E. Rose PhD (2002) The Family Lecture, Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6:3-4, 235-241, DOI: 10.1300/J155v06n03_19 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J155v06n03_19
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 11:05 21 December 2014
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 11:05 21 December 2014
The Family Lecture Nancy E. Rose
SUMMARY. This paper describes a lecture about my extended family, in which I discuss a variety of configurations consisting of lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults, and our children. It raises an array of issues, including alternative insemination, biological and nonbiological parentage, donors and birthmothers, adoption, co-parenting and blended families, significant others, and gay marriage and domestic partnership. It helps many students obtain both a more expansive sense of family and a deeper understanding of homophobia. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: Website: © 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Lesbian and gay families, family values, homophobia This essay is a contribution to the project of teaching about homophobia. In it, I describe what I have come to call the “family lecture,” a discussion of my Nancy E. Rose, PhD, is affiliated with California State University, San Bernardino, Economics Department, 5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino, CA 92407 (E-mail: [email protected]). Author note: I would like to thank my family members for discussions about parts of this essay. Everyone has given their permission to use their first names. For permission to use “The Family Lecture” in your own classroom with my family as an example, contact the author directly. [Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “The Family Lecture.” Rose, Nancy E. Co-published simultaneously in Journal of Lesbian Studies (Harrington Park Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 6, No. 3/4, 2002, pp. 235-241; and: Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses (ed: Elizabeth P. Cramer) Harrington Park Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc., 2002, pp. 235-241. Single or multiple copies of this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800-HAWORTH, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address: [email protected]].
2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
235
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 11:05 21 December 2014
236
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
own extended family that I have been developing over the past decade. It encompasses descriptions of a range of groupings consisting of straight and lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults, and our children. At each step I ask students how they view the constellation–whether they consider it to be a family. Introducing these configurations raises an array of issues, including: alternative insemination; biological and nonbiological parentage; the role of donors and birthmothers in children’s lives; adoption issues, including second-parent adoption, adoption by single adults and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) couples, and transracial adoption; co-parenting, stepparenting, and blended families; the role of significant others (sometimes called fictive kin) and community; and gay marriage and domestic partnership. It works! Most students obtain a more expansive conception of what constitutes a family, and have a broader understanding of a range of other LGBT issues as a result. As the discussion unfolds, students see that most of the issues affect both heterosexual and LGBT parents; indeed, the only issue in this list that solely affects LGBT adults is gay marriage and domestic partnership. As a result, LGBT families become more normalized. Further, students generally can understand gay marriage and domestic partnership as civil rights issues even if they remain stuck about what they perceive to be religious implications. My main purpose in writing this essay is to motivate others to include discussions of LGBT families, including their own, in teaching about homophobia. Many students wedded to idealized notions of family and “family values” do not see us as having real families. If our families are acknowledged at all, they are often seen as oddities, sometimes represented by Hollywood celebrities, but not by “ordinary folks.” I realize that I am lucky in this regard. Both my sister and I are bisexual and my brother is gay, and a variety of configurations exist within my own extended family, making it productive and instructive to use us as a case study. However, increasingly, many of these, and other, situations can be found within our individual networks of family and friends. The family lecture is presented at least halfway through Women’s Studies courses. Thus by the time of the lecture students should have a thorough understanding of sexism and patriarchy, including the importance of homophobia in maintaining gender oppression. Just before the family lecture, I present statistics of changing household configurations in the U.S. over the past few decades. This generally includes: “traditional nuclear” families, i.e., mom, dad, and one or more children under age 18; married couples without children; single adults, both female and male, with and without children; and unmarried adult households, with and without children. Several points emerge in this discussion. One is that the nuclear family is declining while all of the other types of households are increasing. Another is
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 11:05 21 December 2014
Nancy E. Rose
237
that we do not have reliable statistics on LGBT families. The substantial increase in female-headed households is explained by the increase in divorce and in never-married women having children. Along these lines, I also present statistics on the decline in teenage pregnancy and talk about the increase in professional women choosing to have children outside marriage (the Murphy Brown scenario). It is in this context that I first discuss the lesbian baby boom–it is simply one of the ways in which (legally) unmarried women have been becoming mothers. A similar, though much less pronounced, trend exists for unmarried fathers, both heterosexual and gay, who are family heads. Now for the lecture itself. (Imagine this as a power point presentation–each person appears on the screen as a circle and is then connected to the others in their immediate household.) For my purposes in this essay, I will describe the groupings, along with a sociogram of the resultant diagram (Appendix A), and the questions and discussions that arise throughout the lecture. I begin with a (seemingly) heterosexual unmarried couple: myself (Nancy) and then-partner (Heath). Then I add one child (Jesse) and another (Zach). Along the way Heath and I got married. This leads to a brief discussion about cohabitation, and why or why not people choose to marry. I point out that in many countries marriage is not as common as it is in the U.S., and that a couple is considered legally partnered after a given amount of time (e.g., seven years in Australia). This is rather straightforward, however, and everyone agrees that we were a family, especially after we married. Next, Heath and I divorced, with joint physical and legal custody of the boys, who had homes with each of us. Most students continue to see each grouping as a family, although many view the two families as “broken,” reflecting the strength of the idealized notion of the nuclear family. Heath then became unmarried partners with Haile, a situation that can lead to a usually brief discussion of stepparenting. (I’ve remained blessedly single.) I then introduce my sister (Jill), who was partnered with another woman (Annie) when they had their son (Joshua). Asking students whether they see this grouping as a family raises a multitude of issues. However, before we get to those, someone inevitably asks how my sister became pregnant, a question that opens up a far-ranging discussion about alternative insemination. Students are reminded of the increase in infertility and the variety of treatments for it, including sperm and/or egg donors as well as surrogate mothers. Students generally associate infertility with heterosexual couples, in line with its attention in the media over the past few decades; yet it is fairly easily seen as an issue common to both heterosexual and LGBT adults. Returning to the question of how my sister conceived becomes quite easy; it involved no high-tech interventions since she was inseminated at home using a syringe. This sounds relatively uncomplicated by this point.
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 11:05 21 December 2014
238
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
Other questions are predictable as well. One is whether it is “fair” to conceive, and parent, a child without a father. There are several responses. The first, quick one is a reminder of the statistics showing the increase in families headed by single mothers, and the much slighter rise in families headed by single fathers, as a result of divorce or never having been married. It is simply a fact that increasing numbers of children are being raised by one parent. Yet this is typically not the case for children of LGBT adults, as there are often two parents. I also ask the students whether it is fair for children to be raised by abusive parents, and note that these are the children about whom they should be concerned. The most important response to the concern about “fairness” to the children raised by LGBT adults regards how they are doing. Here I discuss the growing body of literature on children raised in LGBT families. The studies show several things, most importantly, that psychologically the children are turning out to be relatively well-adjusted. First, they are wanted and loved; indeed, often elaborate planning goes into their conception and/or adoption. Further, compared to other children, they tend to be more accepting of a range of differences–racial, abilities, as well as sexual orientation. The problems that they encounter with their parent’s sexual orientation are primarily caused by other people’s negative reactions. Another question that often arises has to do with the sexual orientation of children raised by LGBT adults. I respond that the children raised in LGBT families are no more or less likely than anyone else to be LGBT themselves. (Most LGBTs were raised by heterosexual parents, yet this did not affect our sexual orientation.) However, it is likely that our children will be encouraged to explore their sexual orientation, rather than feeling that they need to hide it from their parents. Finally, this segues into a discussion about whether or not the child knows the biological father. I respond that a spectrum of options exists for mothers–from anonymity via a sperm bank, to knowing the father, who can have varying degrees of involvement with the child. Indeed, this decision typically involves a great deal of thought, and sometimes changes after the child’s birth. Further, many children in LGBT families have significant others–“aunts” and “uncles”–who are an ongoing part of their lives. This strand of thought, in turn, moves into a discussion of the importance of family networks in the LGBT community. Indeed, in part since it is not legally sanctioned, there is more purposive creation of extended families. Often we consider each other as kin; for example, Annie has been my sister-in-law since she and Jill were partners. In fact, these extended families, or “family webs,” were the topic of a research project proposed with another sister-in-law, Lynn,
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 11:05 21 December 2014
Nancy E. Rose
239
who became partners with Annie after she and my sister split up (Bravewomon & Rose, 1998). As was the case with my children, Joshua had homes with both my sister and with Annie and Lynn. By this point, it becomes more difficult for students to view the situation of my children, but not that of Joshua, as being part of two families. Eventually we return to the family constellations and the sociogram. After several years, Lynn gave birth to another child (Sam), and Annie subsequently adopted both Joshua and Sam. This leads to an informative discussion of second-parent, same sex adoptions, in which the birthmother is not required to relinquish custody in order for another adult of the same sex to adopt the child. Many students become so eager to understand these machinations that they cease to be as concerned about a child having two women as legal mothers. I then tell them that Annie and Lynn filed as domestic partners, and are as married as possible in California. This leads to a discussion of domestic partnership and gay marriage, during which many students gain some understanding of their implications and importance as civil rights issues, often seeing them as protection for the child. Next we look at my sister’s current partner (Larry) and his two daughters (Chelsey and Simone). This is a modern blended family: all of the children have two homes, as Chelsey and Simone live with Larry and Jill, and with their biological mother and her current husband and their biological child. By this point, many students see this situation as just as complicated as that of Joshua. They often relate to it easily as they know others in similar circumstances, which helps further normalize Joshua’s families. Finally we come to a gay male couple, my brother (Avi) and his partner (Ron). In the early 1980s, Avi was a donor for a lesbian couple (Nan and Lisa, more sisters-in-law), who had a daughter (Aarin). By now the idea of a lesbian couple having a child seems less strange, and does not become the focus of the ensuing conversation. Instead, this leads to a discussion of how much more difficult it is for gay men to parent than it is for lesbians, and of the various ways in which gay men, as well as other adults, both gay and straight, can parent and/or become significant others in the lives of children. Someone often asks about adoption, which leads to the last situation, as Avi and Ron are in the process of adopting a child, or siblings, through the foster care/adoption program. After extensive home visits and certification, they are eagerly awaiting placement. Most likely this will be a transracial adoption, a subject that can lead to a discussion of such adoptions in general. Again, students see that these issues affect both gay and straight adults.
240
Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 11:05 21 December 2014
CONCLUSIONS I hope that this essay will encourage others to talk about LGBT families when teaching about homophobia, and to incorporate their own situations in these discussions. It seems to soften students somewhat, and to see LGBT families as more real, rather than as something that only affects people who they don’t know. Although it obviously does not work for everyone, it helps many students further understand homophobia, changing their hearts as well as their minds. REFERENCE Bravewomon, L. & Rose, N.E. (1998) Family webs: A study of extended families in the lesbian/gay/bisexual community. Feminist Economics, 4(2), 107-109.
241
Nancy
Zach
Jesse
Heath
Haile
Lynn
Sam
Annie
Josh
Jill
Simone
Chelsey
Larry
APPENDIX A
Ron
Avi
Nan
Lisa
Aarin
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 11:05 21 December 2014
