Lesbian, Gay, and Heterosexual Adoptive Parents’ Socialization Approaches to Children’s Minority Statuses

Abstract

This study examined the narratives of 82 adoptive parents (41 couples: 15 lesbian, 15 gay male, 11 heterosexual) of young children (M age = 5.81 years) with a focus on understanding parents' socialization practices and strategies surrounding race (among parents of children of color), and family structure (among lesbian or gay [LG] parents). Most parents described an engaged approach to socialization surrounding their children's racial minority and LG-parent family statuses, employing strategies such as (a) holding parentchild conversations aimed at instilling pride, (b) seeking communities that reflect their child's identities (more often LG than heterosexual), and (c) educating about racism and heterosexism. Some parents described a cautious approach in which they acknowledged their child's racial background and LG-parent family status but were cautious about not being overly focused on their differences. A minority of parents (more often heterosexual than LG) described an avoidant approach, whereby they did not discuss their child's differences.

“There Is No Perfect School”: The Complexity of School Decision‐Making Among Lesbian and Gay Adoptive Parents

“…Regarding parents' consideration of racial diversity, White parents—especially women—with children of color often prioritized racial diversity in seeking educational settings, although sometimes this emphasis was considered alongside other valued considerations that would potentially be lost, such as a gay‐friendly school or a “top scoring” school. That women were more likely to prioritize racial diversity is consistent with prior work (Parcel et al, ), including a study that indicated that lesbian adoptive mothers may assume a more purposeful approach to racial socialization than gay adoptive fathers (Goldberg et al, ), suggesting that gender may intersect with sexual orientation to shape awareness of marginalized statuses. As White parents of children of color, these parents often appeared aware of their limited ability to provide racial socialization, thus relying in part on the school community of peers and teachers to do so (Park, ; Samuels, ), unlike middle‐class Black parents who can “make up” for needed racial socialization at home (Vincent et al, ).…”

“…For 14 families (eight LM, four GF)—all parents of children of color, eight of whom chose private schools—racial diversity, and specifically the presence of other children of color, was emphasized as a priority. Most of these parents were women, echoing prior indications that heterosexual mothers value racially diverse schools more than heterosexual fathers (Parcel et al, ) and lesbian adoptive mothers may be more purposeful than gay adoptive fathers in their approach to racial socialization (Goldberg, Sweeney, Black, & Moyer, ). These parents recognized the significance of racial and ethnic representation in the school in that they or their partners did not share their child's race and felt obligated to select schools that would support children's emerging racial identity development.…”

Family Resilience Amid Stigma and Discrimination: A Conceptual Model for Families Headed by Same‐Sex Parents

“…As adults, children with lesbian or gay parents have said they were raised to be open minded and flexible about gender and sexuality (Goldberg, ). Three major socialization styles have been examined in LG families: engaged (i.e., direct and focused), cautious (i.e., explain differences but not too frequently), and avoidant (i.e., avoid a discussion all together; Goldberg, Sweeney, Black, & Moyer, ). More research is necessary to examine how some aspects of these practices may be protective and how others might exacerbate risk.…”

Hegemonic Heteronormativity: Toward a New Era of Queer Family Theory

“…Background and Critique Oswald et al's (2005) definition of heteronormativity as an "ideological composite" (p. 142) has been instrumental in studying lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans 1 , and queer (LGBTQ) individuals in the fields of family science (Allen, 2016), communication (e.g., Chevrette, 2013), and psychology (e.g., Goldberg & Smith, 2015;Goldberg, Sweeney, Black, & Moyer, 2016;Toomey, Ryan, Diaz, Card, & Russell, 2010), among other fields (e.g., media studies; Dhaenens, 2013). As background to our proposed model, we felt it prudent to review the body of literature that has engaged with and/or referenced Oswald et al's (2005) chapter.…”