No abstract

This is the first study to examine change in depression and anxiety across the first year of adoptive parenthood in same-sex couples (90 couples: 52 lesbian, 38 gay male). Given that sexual minorities uniquely contend with sexual orientation-related stigma, this study examined how both internalized and enacted forms of stigma affect the mental health of lesbians and gay men during the transition to parenthood. In addition, the role of contextual support was examined. Higher perceived workplace support, family support, and relationship quality were related to lower depressive and anxious symptoms at the time of the adoption, and higher perceived friend support was related to lower anxiety symptoms. Lower internalized homophobia and higher perceived neighborhood gay-friendliness were related to lower depressive symptoms. Finally, individuals with high internalized homophobia who lived in states with unfavorable legal climates regarding gay adoption experienced the steepest increases in depressive and anxious symptoms. Findings have important implications for counselors working with sexual minorities, especially those experiencing the transition to parenthood.

Little research has investigated the division of child care and housework in adoptive or lesbian/gay parent families, yet these contexts “control for” family characteristics such as biological relatedness and parental gender differences known to be linked to family work. This study examined predictors (measured preadoption) of the division of child care and housework (measured postadoption) in lesbian (n = 55), gay (n = 40), and heterosexual (n = 65) newly adoptive couples. Same‐sex couples shared child care and housework more equally than heterosexual couples. For the full sample, inequities in work hours between partners were associated with greater discrepancies in partners' contributions to child care and masculine tasks; inequities in income between partners were related to greater discrepancies in contributions to feminine tasks. Participants who contributed more to child care tended to contribute more to feminine tasks. These findings extend knowledge of how labor arrangements are enacted in diverse groups.

Research on same‐sex couples and housework can add nuance to our understanding of gender and housework. This analytic review highlights what can be gained from research on same‐sex couples and housework. Specifically, this review reveals how same‐sex couples both “do” and “undo” gender through housework. It illustrates how partners in same‐sex couples are influenced by heteronormative meaning systems surrounding housework, yet it also points to ways housework can be redefined in the context of same‐sex couples. For example, same‐sex couples who enact arrangements with more specialized divisions of labor tend to reject the notion that their labor arrangements are imitative or derivative of those of heterosexual couples. Instead, they interpret their arrangements as pragmatic and chosen, as well as uniquely defined by the fact that they are enacted in a same‐sex relational context. This review also underscores the need to attend to the social and temporal contexts that shape how same‐sex couples give meaning to and enact housework. Finally, this review challenges us to think beyond simplistic classification systems of housework as feminine or masculine, or as gendered or nongendered, and, likewise, to move beyond characterizations of same‐sex couples as either “doing” or “undoing” gender.

This study examines the degree to which the division of household and child-care tasks predicts working-class women's well-being across the transition to parenthood. Women completed questionnaires about the division of labor and their well-being before the birth of their first child and upon returning to work. Results showed that violated expectations regarding the division of child care were associated with increased distress postnatally, and there was some evidence that this relationship was moderated by gender ideology. Traditional women whose husbands did more child care than they expected them to do were more distressed. Work status also moderated the relationship between violated expectations and distress. The results suggest that the division of child care is more salient in predicting distress than the division of housework, for working-class women, at this time point.Family roles have undergone many changes in the United States over the past 50 years. What was considered the traditional family arrangement in the 1950s (mom stays home, dad works) is clearly no longer the norm. In 2000, both parents were employed in 64.2% of married-couple families with children under 18, whereas the father, but not the mother, was employed in only 29.2% of married-couple families. In 2000, the labor force participation rate of married mothers was 69.8%, with 55.8% of married mothers with children under a year old in the work force (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2000). These employment trends demonstrate that employed women who also claim the title of mother are clearly in the majority. Little is known about how the transition into the parent role, while maintaining one's work and marital roles, affects women's well-being. The goal of this study is to explore this phenomenon for working-class women. Multiple Roles and Women's Mental HealthMuch research has explored the effects of employment on women's mental health. Barnett and Hyde (2001) cite empirical data to support the notion that multiple roles are beneficial for women's mental health. Indeed, much research suggests that employed mothers enjoy greater psychological well-being than mothers who are housewives (e.g., Glass & Fujimoto, 1994;Hyde, Klein, Essex, & Clark, 1995;Kessler & McRae, 1982). However, other studies have not found significant differences in the mental health of housewives versus employed women (e.g., Klein, Hyde, Essex, & Clark, 1998;Lennon, 1994). These inconsistent findings may be explained, in part, by examining both paid and unpaid work together. For example, Rosenfield (1989) found that housewives were typically more depressed than employed women, with one exception: housewives were less depressed than the most overloaded employed women (fullCorrespondence concerning this article should be addressed to Maureen Perry-Jenkins, Tobin Hall, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003. mpj@psych.umass.edu. NIH Public Access NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript time working mothers who received litt...