[Miguel]

Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage…There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents.

12. Children raised in homes with both mothers and fathers navigate the developmental stages more easily, are more solid and secure in their sense of self and in their sense of gender identity, perform better in the school system, have fewer social and emotional problems and become better functioning adults. The plethora of studies which span decades supports the conclusion that gender-linked differences in child-rearing are protective for children. From her research, Baumrind (1982) concluded that children of dual gender parents are more competent, function better with fewer problems in living. Her later research (1991) focused on the complementary nature of the expressive parenting of mothers and the instrumental parenting of fathers. Greenberger (1984) noted that the essential contributions to the optimal development of children are not only gender specific but also gender complementary and virtually impossible for a mother or father to do alone. Children learn about male and female differences through parental modeling. The parental, mother-father relationship provides children with a model of marriage, the most meaningful, enduring relationship that the vast majority of individuals will have during their lives.

13. The complementary contributions of mothers and fathers are readily observable in their gender specific parenting styles. The parenting style of mothers is most often seen as flexible, warm and sympathetic while fathers‘ styles are more directive, consistent and predictable. Rossi (1987) supported this observation with research which concluded that mothers could better read an infant’s facial expressions, respond with tactile gentleness and soothe with the use of voice. Fathers, on the other hand, were less involved in caretaking and engaged in more overt play. Such complementary contributions appear critical for later development. Male and female differences are readily observed in the characteristics of physicality associated with mothering and fathering. Mothers use touch to calm, soothe and to bring comfort to children. When mothers reach for children, they frequently bring them to their breasts to provide safety, warmth and security. Fathers‘ touch is most often described as playful and stimulating, bringing with it a sense of excitement to the child. This rough and tumble play (RTP) is characterized by holding the child at arm’s length in front of them, making eye contact, tossing the infant in the air and holding the child in such a way to have the child look over the father’s shoulder. Shapiro (1994) notes that these “daddy holds” emphasize a sense of freedom for the child.

14. Rohner and Veneziano (2001) conducted an analysis of more than a 100 studies on the role of fathers in child development and concluded that not only did a nurturing father play a critical role in a child‘s well-being but in some cases father-love was a stronger factor in a child’s well-being than mother-love. The researchers concluded: “Overall, father love appears to be as heavily implicated as mother love in offspring’s psychological well-being.”

15. Clarke-Stewart (1980) also investigated differences in how mothers and fathers play with children. She noted that mothers tended to play at the child‘s level, and are more likely to provide opportunities to direct the play, allowing the child to proceed at his or her own pace. On the other hand, fathers’ play was more instructional. RTP was much more noticeable, focusing clearly on acceptable/non-acceptable behaviors. It is important to clarify that RTP does not correlate with aggression and violence, but rather is associated with self-control. Through RTP, children quickly learn that physical violence such as biting and kicking are not acceptable. In RTP, children learn from their fathers how to manage emotionally-charged situations in the context of play and how to recognize and respond appropriately to an array of emotions.

16. Stress resilience is another area where fathers’ contributions are noticeable as well. The research conducted by Diener (2002) at the University of Utah is particularly poignant. She demonstrated that infants (12 months old) who had close relationships with their fathers were more stress resistant than those who did not have close relationships with their fathers. These babies who had secure father relationships used more coping strategies. Diener concluded: “there may be something unique to fathers that provides children with different opportunities to regulate their emotions.”

17. Discipline is another area where differences between mothers and fathers emerge quite prominently. Fathers more frequently rely on firmness, principles, and rules. Mothers rely more on responding, negotiating, and adjusting toward the children‘s moods as well as to the context. Mothers place much more emphasis on intuition in trying to understand their children’s needs and the emotions of the moment. Gilligan (1982) attributes these characteristics to innate differences between men and women: men stress fairness, justice and duty based on rules and principles whereas women are more inclined to focus on understanding, sympathy, care and helping.

18. The children of unmarried or divorced parents are at risk for emotional, behavioral and health problems. They are more likely to be abused by their own parents, by step-parents or parents’ boyfriends/girlfriends. Children of unmarried or divorced parents have lower academic achievement, poorer school attendance and more discipline problems when compared to children of married parents. These academically-related problems are associated with more use of remedial and special needs resources. In addition, these children are more apt to encounter trouble with the law such as committing crimes, abusing drugs, and spending time in incarceration. They are more likely to have difficulty in forming their own stable families.

19. The consequences of father absence has been well-documented. Blankenhorn (1995) concluded that father hunger is the primary cause of the declining well-being of children in our society and is associated with social problems such as teenage pregnancy, child abuse, and domestic violence against women. Masser (1989), a psychiatrist at Northside Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, noted that an increasing number of children who seek psychiatric care are suffering from father hunger.


20. Golombok, Tasker & Murray (1997) found that “children in father absent families perceive themselves to be less cognitively competent and less physically competent than children in father-present families, with no differences between children in lesbian and single heterosexual families.” Most of the research on gay parenting compares children in some fatherless families to children in other fatherless families. Such studies cannot be used reasonably used to contradict extensive social science research which concludes that family structure indeed matters, and the intact, married biological family structure is the most protective of child well-being.

21. Although there is more research to support the ill effects of father hunger in children, the consequences of mother hunger are beginning to emerge in case studies. This is partially explained because of the historical preference for mothers to be the primary caretakers of their children even when divorce occurs. The Eisold report (1998) provides evidence that mother hunger may indeed emerge when a child is deprived of a mother or mother figure. In the article titled “Recreating Mother,” a male child was conceived by a surrogate mother for two homosexual men. They had arranged an artificial insemination with a woman who agreed to relinquish her parental rights in return for medical care and financial compensation. The child, Nick, was cared for by a hired nanny and began attending school when he was two years old. When Nick was 2½ years old, the nanny was abruptly terminated, another nanny was hired and subsequently fired, and a third nanny was hired. The homosexual couple adopted a second child. At 4½ years old, Nick‘s behavioral problems resulted in a referral to a female child psychologist, a fourth mother substitute. Because Nick lived in a world where mothers were hired and fired, he fantasized about buying a new mother. Eisold questioned, “How do we explain why this child, the son of a male couple, seemed to need to construct a woman—’mother’—with whom he could play the role of a loving boy/man? How did such an idea enter his mind? What inspired his intensity on the subject?” Eisold sees some normal, innate developmental forces at work in a boy who has no mother: if he has none, he will need to make one.