REGULAR ARTICLES

Deconstructing
the Fear of Father Absence
Amaryll Perlesz

ABSTRACT. This paper critically examines Louise Silversteins and

Carl Auerbachs paper on Deconstructing the Essential Father. The pa-
per provides research support for their position that children benefit
from stable, consistent, loving, low-conflict parenting arrangements; ir-
respective of the gender of the parent. Silverstein and Auerbach, how-
ever, go beyond this conclusion to also recommend that children would
benefit from being reconnected with their absent fathers. The current
paper challenges this particular conclusion to their critique and explores
the apparently contradictory position that there is no essential need for
fathers yet efforts should be made to proactively develop and support so-
cial and emotional connections between children and their fathers. The
paper also examines other literature and research findings around the
unique contribution of social fathering in raising children, and con-
cludes that there is no social, psychological, or developmental justifica-
tion to legislate for father presence. There is no research-based credibility
in promoting patriarchal, nuclear family formation as a preferred social
and family structure to optimise childrens emotional, social, physical,

Dr. Amaryll Perlesz is Senior Lecturer in Family Therapy, The Bouverie Centre, La
Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. Address correspondence to: The Bouverie Cen-
tre, 50 Flemington Street, Flemington, VIC, 3031 (E-mail: a.perlesz@latrobe.edu.au).
Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, Vol. 16(3) 2004
Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JFFT
2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J086v16n03_01 1
2 JOURNAL OF FEMINIST FAMILY THERAPY

and economic outcomes. The political and social pretext that underlines
father absence fear is just that; a pretext to retain the hegemony of pa-
triarchal nuclear family life and restore fathers to their rightful posi-
tions of power and control within families. In developing a conclusion to
this critique, the paper draws on a brief case-study from a lesbian-parented
family research project conducted in Victoria, Australia, and illustrates
implications for family therapists with a brief clinical vignette. [Article
copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service:
1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website:
<http://www.HaworthPress.com> 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights re-
served.]

KEYWORDS. Family relationships, family structure, parenting, LGBT

families, child emotional development, lesbian families, feminist family
therapy, feminist family studies

PREAMBLE
This isnt a paper Ive wanted to write. In fact, this is a paper that Ive
been avoiding writing. Any topic about fathers is a sensitive one for fa-
thers, men, and indeed for women and children in families too. Weve
all had some experience of having or not having fathers who have been
involved in our lives in varying degrees of good, constructive, wonder-
ful, less helpful or downright bad ways. Weve all got opinions about
fathers. As a lesbian parent living in the one lesbian-parented family for
more than twenty years, in a family you could describe as partly de novo
lesbian family and partly lesbian step-family,1 fathers just havent been
my focus of clinical, research, or personal interest. But sometimes the
personal really is political and drawing on personal and unique ways of
doing family2 offers significant insights in my work as a family
therapist and clinical researcher.
This paper is not about trying to prove that it has worked to not have
that much social parenting by a father in our family. If Im working as a
counsellor helping other families, or teaching family therapists about les-
bian family life, I need to be able to answer questions like: do children
need fathers? or from a different angle, why do we fear the absence of
fathers?
This paper is my journey in searching for answers to these kind of
questions. I begin with a personally curious discrepancy in views be-
tween my daughter (18 years old at the time of writing) and myself
 Amaryll Perlesz 3

around our definitions of doing family. Then I present Louise

Silverstein and Carl Auerbachs critique and deconstruction of the es-
sential father (Silverstein & Auerbach, 1999). Their position is basi-
cally that children dont need a father or a mother, but that they do
benefit from stable, consistent, predictable, loving, low-conflict and
caring parenting arrangements; irrespective of gender. They also rec-
ommend though that children would benefit from social and family ar-
rangements that encourage increasing paternal involvement. I challenge
this particular conclusion to their critique and try and make some sense
of the apparently contradictory position that there is no essential need
for fathers yet efforts should be made to socially and emotionally recon-
nect children with their fathers. I also examine other literature and re-
search findings about the unique contribution of social fathering in
raising children. In developing a conclusion to this journey, I draw on a
brief case-study from the lesbian family research project conducted in
Victoria, Australia in 2003/2004,3 and comment on the implications of
this critique for family therapists with a brief clinical vignette.

A LESBIAN MOTHER
AND HER DAUGHTER CONSTRUCT THEIR FAMILY

I have known for a long time that my daughters social construction

about her own fathering and family is different from my view. When my
daughter speaks about her family to others, she describes her parents (her
mother and father) as separated and her father as remarrying. She views
herself as having a close and trusting relationship with both her biological
mother and father; though she relates much more intimately with her
birth-mother and her mothers lesbian partner; her two full-time house
parents since birth. She infrequently stays over at her fathers house, and
does that now as an older teenager to baby-sit his children and to maintain
her connection with her father and his wife. She also talks fondly about
her younger step-brother and step-sister (her fathers biological children
from this second marriage), and her grandparents (her mothers and fa-
thers parents). She talks openly and warmly about her aunt and her cous-
ins; all blood relations.
It seems that its just easier to define blood relations as familypub-
licly. She rarely adds in her descriptions of her family that her mother is
in a lesbian relationship. Occasionally, she doesnt correct those who
mistakenly believe my partner to be her mother (when I am not present),
in various mainstream contexts such as health and education because
4 JOURNAL OF FEMINIST FAMILY THERAPY

its just easier to go along with others heterosexist assumptions when

filling out forms, or on the telephone, or going shopping and such
things. I cannot recall her ever using a word like step-mother. More of-
ten, though, there is an absence of public language to describe her
life-long intimacy, love, and connectedness with such a significant
non-blood relation who is to all intents and purposes her mother, but
who is also her other mother, her legal guardian, other parent, or
non-birth mother; all labels which somehow diminish the primacy of
the relationship and consequently endanger its visibility. Then theres
her relationship with my partners son who she has actually lived with
off and on, and again is very fond of, yet he too, particularly when she
was younger, was less likely to be described as a brother or step-brother
because of the absence of a blood connection.
My daughter has been raised in a lesbian family in a heterosexist and
homophobic world. She has developed a socially acceptable, and non-
political way of describing her family in public. Yet she has openly spo-
ken up at school in support of the right to gay and lesbian marriage, and
has also written a recent book review for the Australia & New Zealand
Journal of Family Therapy (forthcoming) on Judith E. Snows 2004
collection of childrens stories on How it feels to have a gay or lesbian
parent. She finds no need to hide her lesbian family, nor is she ashamed
of it, and is open with her friends about it and regularly invites them
home, but her dominant construction of family is around heterosexual
separation and step-family life. Its just easier that way.
I, on the other hand, identify as a lesbian parent, and my life partner is
my daughters co-mother. I feel we co-parent together, and have done
so since our daughters birth. Her biological father has at various stages,
albeit infrequently over the years, been a social parent in an independent
connection with his daughter, not in relationship with his ex-wife as a
co-parent. This is not a heterosexual step-family situation post-separa-
tion and divorce. By agreement between all three parenting adults the
father has never contributed financially, and my lesbian partner is her
legal guardian and a major financial support.
In my view there is a discrepancy between my daughters descrip-
tions of her family and her lived-experience. The family she describes
publicly is less involved in her life than her everyday family. I remain
silent about this discrepancy because I respect her choices and I under-
stand the social pressures of heterosexism and homophobia. The irony
is that at the time that youre reading this I cannot have maintained my
silence because I will have received my familys approval to talk about
 Amaryll Perlesz 5

them publicly, and they will have contributed to, and approved of what
is written here.
The point at which our descriptions of family most clearly diverge is
around the prominence of her father in her family life, and the public in-
visibility of her other mother. For her, publicly, her father is a signifi-
cant part of her family jigsaw, yet privately he is less relevant and he
meets few of her direct emotional, social, physical, financial needs. Her
other mother is significant and central privately, yet marginalised pub-
licly. These social constructions are at odds with my daughters every-
day emotional, intimate and functional connections with her non-birth
mother. Together, my partner and I play a significant parenting role for
our daughter as advisors, coaches, consultants (Parke, 2004) and pro-
vide substantial social, financial, moral, practical and emotional sup-
port. We are her social parents, and she would have no hesitation in
sharing this view.
I have never believed that my daughter has needed her father in order
to be well-socialised and to maximise her intellectual, emotional, physi-
cal and spiritual maturation. Though I have suspected that she wants
him there as a significant link in her geneology, and he is useful in her
public and social construction of family as her biological parent rather
than as a social parent (Dempsey, 2004).
Her father and her co-mother legal guardian do not function in oppo-
sition and competition with each other. On the contrary, they co-exist as
significant adults in her life and it is her own social interactions within
the public and private domains that bring them into prominence as legit-
imate family members at different moments in her everyday life as she
interacts with kith and kin, friends and relatives, her wider social net-
work and a wide range of other people.
So this is my starting point. I personally have had a satisfying experience
raising a child pretty much without her fathers assistance or presence. Yet
I have a daughter who values her biological and social connection with her
father. It is the significance that we attach to his presence or otherwise in
her life and her life history where we differ and it is this difference that is re-
flected in the intellectual and emotional debates about whether or not chil-
dren need fathers in families.

DECONSTRUCTING THE ESSENTIAL FATHER

In 2000, the American Association of Women in Psychology awarded

Louise Silverstein and Carl Auerbach the Distinguished Publication Award
6 JOURNAL OF FEMINIST FAMILY THERAPY

for their article Deconstructing the Essential Father which was published
in the American Psychological Associations premier journal, the American
Psychologist. The following year Silverstein and Auerbach were awarded
another APA accolade, this time from the Division devoted to the study of
Men and Masculinity, for their Fatherhood Project.
The study of fathering and the role of fathers in families has become a
popular pastime. But do children need fathers? Dominant discourse and
popular wisdom says yes of course, particularly when raising sons. The
research evidence (Silverstein & Auerbach, 1999) says probably not:

. . . neither a mother nor a father is essential . . . children need at

least one responsible, caretaking adult who has a positive emo-
tional connection to them and with whom they have a consistent
relationship . . . the stability of the emotional connection and the
predictability of the caretaking relationship are the significant
variables that predict positive child adjustment. (pp. 397-399)

Let me take you through Silverstein and Auerbachs argument that is

also summarised in Silverstein (2002). The above quote and the title of
their paper Deconstructing the Essential Father leads the reader to be-
lieve that the final thesis will be a deconstruction of the essentialist posi-
tion around fathering and there will be a straightforward conclusion,
something like although its nice to have fathers when theyre behav-
ing well, children dont really need them. However, Silverstein and
Auerbachs conclusion is not as straightforward as this, and the discus-
sion in the current paper attempts to make some sense of this.
Prior to embarking on this critique I will make an important distinc-
tion that underlines the argument in this paper; a distinction not made by
Silverstein and Auerbach, and one that is important in understanding
the emotionality that each reader and discussant brings to debating
questions such asdo children need fathers? and why do we fear the
absence of fathers? The answers to these questions need to be consid-
ered at two distinct levels or perhaps from different viewpoints: first of
all theres each particular individual childs experience of her or his
unique child-father relationship; and then theres the broader social dis-
course and constructions about fathering that influence social policy, le-
gal judgements, therapist and parenting behaviour and so on.4
The current paper acknowledges the differences and uniqueness in each
individual childs family circumstance. Father absence/presence carries
very different meanings in post-separation and divorce families, single-
mother heterosexual families, lesbian and heterosexual parented stepfa-
 Amaryll Perlesz 7

milies and lesbian families created by choice. For instance, the purposeful
creation of lesbian-led families without fathers cannot be compared with
the loss of contact with fathers post-separation and divorce in heterosexual-
parented families. Children may react negatively post-separation and di-
vorce to the economic and social disruption and partial loss of contact with
a significant father to whom they are attached (Smyth, 2004), but one
would not necessarily expect a child to be disadvantaged if they have been
raised from birth in an economically stable, nurturing, low conflict family
without an involved father. Changing family membership midstream is not
comparable to creating fatherless (or minimal social paternity) families.
Moreover, father involvement/absence is not an either/or phenomenon,
and contemporary family life harbours a diversity of father/ child biologi-
cal and social relationships on a continuum that includes fathers caring for
children full-time, to known and unknown sperm donors with full, mini-
mal, or no involvement in their childrens lives.
Towards the end of this paper I address the level of individual experi-
ence by touching on the role family therapists play in articulating and
exploring with their clients particular meanings around father presence
and absence within individual families. The bulk of the paper though
deconstructs more general social discourses around fatherhood in order
to show that although any individual child may or may not have a dem-
onstrated personal need for a particular level of father involvement, so-
cial constructions around both biological and social fathering tend to
rely on widely held social and internalised beliefs and assumptions that
have little empirical substance.

THE ESSENTIALIST POSITION

Silverstein and Auerbachs summary of the last two decades of re-

search on fathering characterises the simplistic pro-fathering position
as an essentialising position favoured by neoconservative social sci-
entists (e.g., Blankenhorn, 1995; Popenoe, 1996; Wilson, 2003). Fa-
thers are essential and their absence from families contributes to a
wide range of social problems. Being essential and the essentialist
position are different things. The former means that fathers are essential
for good outcomes for children. The essentialist perspective is broader
than this and includes the following:

Biological sex differences construct gender differences in parenting,

thus women are better biologically prepared for nurturing because of
8 JOURNAL OF FEMINIST FAMILY THERAPY

their biological experiences of pregnancy, birth and breast-feeding

(the converse is true for men);
The social institution of marriage has a civilising impact on men
and makes them more socially responsive and responsible parents
(because they dont have an instinctual drive to nurture);
Fathers make a unique and essential contribution to child develop-
ment and boys in particular need male role models.

DECONSTRUCTING THE ESSENTIALIST POSITION

Biological Sex Differences Construct Gender Differences

in Parenting
The argument outlined here is directly from Silverstein and Auer-
bachs 1999 paper, though where I diverge from their argument is also
clear. The field of evolutionary psychology has relied heavily on the
Trivers hypothesis that male mammals maximise their evolutionary
fitness by impregnating as many females as possible and spending little
time rearing these offspring, whilst female mammals invest physiologi-
cal energy in pregnancy, child-birth, and lactation and are consequently
more innately nurturing (Trivers, 1972). There is a strong critique
within the natural and social sciences of this position because nonhu-
man primate and human behaviour is not readily predicted by this hy-
pothesis. For example, male marmosets, and single and gay fathers have
a capacity to behave like full-time mothers (Patterson & Chan, 1997;
Pruett, 1989; Smuts & Gubernick, 1992).
The rigidly and simplistically defined gendered division of labour of
males as hunters (in the public sphere) and females as gatherers and
nurturers (on the home front and within the private sphere) also does not
have any credibility as an evolutionary and historical given. Men and
women in nomadic cultures and contemporary foraging and horticultural
societies have been shown to perform a similar range of tasks, with
women contributing to providing whilst men have played active roles in
childcare in a variety of social and cultural settings (Silverstein & Auer-
bach, 1999).
There is also no evidence that mothers are more natural caregivers
than fathers. Neither mothers nor fathers are natural caregivers and
they do have to learn on the job (Lamb, 1997). Lambs research indi-
cates that in two-parent families, children become attached to both par-
ents at about the same time during the first year of life. Babies do not
 Amaryll Perlesz 9

have a preference, but under stress are more likely to seek out their
mothers who, despite increasing participation in the workforce, are still
predominantly the primary caretakers in families. Mothers become sig-
nificantly more competent caregivers because they generally spend
more time looking after their children, and mothers consequently seem
more sensitive to their childrens needs. Mothers are not innately more
sensitive and responsive to their children because of their biological
experiences of pregnancy, birth, and breast-feeding.
The Social Institution of Marriage Has a Civilising Influence
on Men
The argument here has been that if men are not innate nurturers, the
provision of a social structure of marriage will assist in teaching them
the rules of caring and responsibility towards children. An extension of
the Trivers hypothesis is that male primates will not spend time tending
another males offspring, because it is a direct conflict of interest with
their own evolutionary survival (the paternity hypothesis). This hypoth-
esis is generally not borne out, because males in single-male groups
have less paternal involvement than males in multi-male groups. Smuts
and Gubernick (1992) offer an alternative reciprocity hypothesis to
explain male nonhuman primate behaviour. Male care of infants is di-
rectly proportional to the amount of benefits that females can exchange
in return for this offspring care. Thus females in multi-male groups can
provide preferential sexual treatment, and preferential support and po-
litical assistance in dominance ranking and hierarchical status for
particular males within the family group, and thus earn reciprocal child-
care from that male.
Silverstein and Auerbach argue that the reciprocity hypothesis works
for humans as well as primates. Mens involvement in childcare is great-
est in dual-shift, working-class families where both parents incomes are
significant to family stability (Pleck, 1993). Paternal involvement is least
with poor unmarried teenage fathers and upper-class fathers from tradi-
tional nuclear families: the former young men have limited capacity to of-
fer economic security to their children, and in the latter case, it is the
wives who have little to offer economically, and externally paid child-
care is offered by fathers rather than direct paternal involvement. More-
over, as one would expect, employed fathers are much more likely to
financially support non-resident children than unemployed fathers.
The supposedly civilising effects of marriage are clearly not borne out
regarding the statistics on violence and sexual abuse by married men.
10 JOURNAL OF FEMINIST FAMILY THERAPY

Women continue to be more likely to be murdered by their intimate part-

ners than by a man less well known by them (Mouzos, 1999) and biologi-
cal caretakers of children are more likely to engage in serious physical
abuse of children, than either men outside the family or even step-fathers
or foster parents (Silverstein & Auerbach, 1999). In the case of sexual
abuse, children are also more likely to be abused by a biological parent or
non-birth caregiver than a stranger outside the home (Salter, 1995). More-
over, mens presence in marriage and family life can increase womens
and childrens stress and workloads through male gambling, excessive
use of alcohol and cigarettes (Engle & Breaux, 1998), extended TV
watching, and other idle pastimes.
Fathers Make a Unique and Essential Contribution to Child
Development and Boys in Particular Need Male Role Models
Silverstein and Auerbachs argument here rests on the empirical evi-
dence of child adjustment post-divorce. They conclude that on the whole
divorce does not irretrievably harm the majority of children. The impact
of divorce and separation can include economic stress, disrupted attach-
ments, and separation from familiar neighbourhood, family, and friends,
but father absence is only one factor here. Father absence is not a mono-
lithic variable but rather represents a variety of different levels and types
of involvement between fathers and children (Smyth, 2004).
Even though the initial impact of divorce on boys has been found by
some researchers to be more negative than on girls, the vast majority of
children cope well with their parents marital transition, and there is
nothing definitive in the literature that causally links boys outcomes di-
rectly to their fathers absence or presence (Hetherington, Bridges, &
Insabella, 1998). Smyth (2004) summarises research evidence that it is
not paternal absence per se that contributes to negative consequences
for children post-separation and divorce but rather parental conflict and
economic fallout (p. 34). It has also been suggested that . . . some boys
and young men suffer not from an absence of male role models, but
from an excess of destructive male role models (Flood, 2003:23, his
emphasis). Single mothers may have less authority in parenting teenage
boys in a male dominated, patriarchal society, but there are many other
aspects of single mothering that can be utilised by their sons to diminish
stereotyped gender roles, and increase males capacity to nurture and
get in touch with and express feelings (Howard, 2001; Silverstein &
Rashbaum, 1994).
 Amaryll Perlesz 11

The argument that boys need male role models is probably the position
that holds the greatest social currency (see below for further discussion of
this). The dominant social discourse is that boys need a heterosexual male
parent to establish a male gender identity and a heterosexual sexual orienta-
tion. The empirical research within both heterosexual and homosexual
families does not support this position. For instance, boys raised by lesbian
mothers are just as likely to be heterosexual as their heterosexually raised
male peers, and to develop normal male gender identity (Patterson, 1995).
Whilst the converse is true in that boys raised in strongly heterosexual
households can still develop homosexual identities.
Silverstein and Auerbach conclude that there is no empirical evidence
. . . that fathers make a unique and essential contribution to child
development . . . (yet) . . . it is essential to strengthen the father-child bond
within all family contexts, especially non-marital contexts (pp. 403-404, my
emphasis).
So, herein lies the strange twist within Silverstein and Auerbachs argu-
ment. Despite their persuasive critique of these essentialist myths around
fathering, they actually end up agreeing with the neoconservative position
that they set out to critique: . . . it is preferable for responsible fathers (and
mothers) to be actively involved with their children . . . we share a concern
that many men in U.S. society do not have a feeling of emotional connec-
tion or sense of responsibility toward their children (p. 398) and social
policy should be directed towards . . . achieving the goal of reconnecting
fathers with children (p. 405).
In fact, I am not even sure how particularly conservative this position
is. It seems pretty much the socially dominant discourse of conservatives
and those who like to see themselves as less conservative (see below what
the leaders of the two main political parties in Australia have to say about
male role models). Its more your common, everyday garden wisdom . . .
kids need their dads! But reading between the lines here, men or dads
need their kids too. It is also a dominant intellectual discourse from even
thoughtful critics of gender and family politics that: fathers involve-
ment in families is highly desirable (because) when fathers are actively
involved, they expand the practical, emotional, and social resources
available for parenting (Flood, 2003).

HIDDEN NEOCONSERVATIVE BELIEFS:

THE DOMINANT DISCOURSE HOLDS SWAY
On the one hand, Silverstein and Auerbach present compelling re-
search that supports the contention that neither a father or a mother is es-
12 JOURNAL OF FEMINIST FAMILY THERAPY

sential, and that children need at least one responsible, caretaking adult
(gender non-specific) with whom they have a positive emotional con-
nection and a consistent relationship. They even declare a clear concern
about the discrimination against cohabiting couples, single mothers,
and gay and lesbian parents and recommend that public policy should
support the legitimacy of family diversity. Yet, at the same time, they
also argue that it is preferable for responsible fathers to be actively in-
volved with their children and that social policy should be directed to-
wards reconnecting fathers with children. So, despite valuing family
diversity, they are placing a higher value on those types of families who
choose to involve fathers.
Theyre saying that even though theyre not needed, its preferable to
have fathers in families if theyre behaving well; that is, not abusing their
wives and children, being consistent parents, providing financial, social,
and/or nurturing support, and being positively emotionally connected with
their children. Fathers are important but not essential. We can do without
them, but its better to have them. The hidden (not so hidden) agenda here
is that it is important for the men to have contact with their children (not just
the other way around). It is important for men to develop their nurturing ca-
pacities and to partake in happy, fulfilling family life.
Implicit in this conclusion is that there is a hierarchy of parenting. It is
preferable to have fathers involved, in preferably two parent families, with
preferable involvement from both mothers and fathers. These subtly articu-
lated preferences embedded in what seems like a radical critique seem little
different from a stated preference for the mythical and idealised well-func-
tioning, heterosexual, nuclear family.5
The public response to their article on Deconstructing the Essential
Father was in some ways predictable. Silverstein (2002) reports that the
public outcry against the article was so intense that the U.S. House of
Representatives debated whether to pass a resolution condemning the
article (p. 59). Politicians were obviously upset that fathers (and moth-
ers) were deemed to be important but not essential to healthy child devel-
opment. But at the same time the paper was awarded the Distinguished
Publication Award by a socially conservative professional bodythe
American Psychological Association. One can only guess that the APA
appreciated the publicly credible recommendations in the papers conclu-
sion to have fathers more socially and emotionally connected with their
children (for the sake of both the men and the children); a rehashing of the
dominant discourse and a re-establishing of patriarchy.
 Amaryll Perlesz 13

THE FEAR OF FATHER ABSENCE

The neoconservative backlash or fear of father absence takes many
forms and is back-dropped by a social context of rapid transformation in
family life over the last 30 years and an increasing diversity of family
arrangements6 (de Vaus, 2004). In the Australian context, there has
been a gradual decline in marriage rates since the mid-1970s and peo-
ple are generally marrying later. There has been a steady increase in the
percentage of couples cohabiting but not marrying. There has also been
a steady decline in the fertility rate since 1961 and women are choosing
to have fewer children and delaying having their first child. Childbear-
ing outside marriage has also increased substantially. There has been a
significant shift away from the male breadwinner/female caregiver or
homemaker style of family to women increasingly participating in paid
employment. More than half (57%) of couple families with dependent
children have both parents in paid employment.
Divorce rates have risen and step-families are more common. De-
pending on how the statistics are calculated, between 32% and 46% of
Australian marriages will end in divorce in comparison to an almost
zero divorce rate at the turn of the century (19th to 20th C.). About
one-third of marriages are remarriages for at least one party, and these
remarriages tend to be less stable than first marriages. The percentage of
couples with dependent children has decreased and there has been an in-
crease in lone-parent families, with 25 percent of children spending
some time living in a lone-parent family at some stage by the age of 15.
Key social shifts such as these have allowed for the development of
lesbian-parented families, and within the heterosexual domain there is
less pressure on women to stay in unhappy marriages, to have children,
and indeed to get married or even partner in the first place. Or if women
choose to have children they can raise them in single-parent households
without men. These social changes have no doubt contributed to in-
creasing social anxiety about whose job it is to raise the children.
Silverstein and Auerbach and others (e.g., Smart, 1997) have pointed
out that such social and family based changes undermine the power and
privilege that heterosexual men have enjoyed in traditional nuclear fam-
ilies. The argument that men are essential to, or needed in, families is an
attempt to restore the natural balance of men having an important and
powerful position within families. Silverstein and Auerbach go so far as
to say that it is an attempt to reassert the cultural hegemony of tradi-
tional values, such as heterocentrism, Judeo-Christian marriage, and
male power and privilege (p. 404).
14 JOURNAL OF FEMINIST FAMILY THERAPY

Silverstein and Auerbachs solutions, or an alternative set of recom-

mendations to the neoconservative backlash are as follows: reconstruct
traditional masculinity ideology; reconstruct social institutions; and
provide more government funding to all families with children. What
follows is a critique of each of these recommendations.

Reconstructing Traditional Masculinity Ideology

Silverstein and Auerbachs desire to reconstruct traditional mascu-

line ideology is specifically directed to redefining the father-child bond
as separate from the mother-father bond. They say by affording more
social value to the father-child bond, and valuing it as least as much as
society currently values the mother-child bond, boys, like girls, will be
socialised to assume greater responsibility for child-care and nurturing.
That is, their fathers will be modelling it for them, and that the creation
of this bond need not be within the confines of traditional marriage.
Seeking father involvement with children is not a new theoretical posi-
tion. For several decades (some) feminists, object-relation theorists and
masculinists have all argued that greater father involvement in child rear-
ing is an obvious solution to balancing gender-role distribution within
families and increasing the capacity of men to nurture and provide emo-
tional (not just financial) support to children (Leupnitz, 1988; Pease,
2002). At face value this is a sensible position, but it doesnt in any way
challenge the dominant paradigm of patriarchal family formation even if,
as Silverstein and Auerbach also argue, that social fathering need not/
should not be inextricably intertwined with marriage (p. 405). Yes, fa-
thers will have more time with their children, but in what contexts other
than a heterosexual relationship (marriage or defacto) pre- or post-di-
vorce? The most obvious other possibilities are gay men (either single or
partnered) or single heterosexual men choosing to raise children without
women. In an Australian context such arrangements are rare because of
the absence of a legislative framework in which men can create such fam-
ilies (e.g., adoption for gay men is not a possibility), the cost of (overseas)
surrogacy is prohibitive for most men, and few (behaviourally untrou-
bled) children are available for fostering.
Silverstein and Auerbachs argument to strengthen the father-child
bond is also based on the premise that high paternal involvement has
both direct and indirect positive consequences for families and children
(Silverstein, 2002). Again, this may well be the case, but it doesnt mean
that fathers are essential to good outcomes for children. An analogous
argument might be that oranges are a good source of vitamin C and it is
 Amaryll Perlesz 15

therefore necessary for children to eat oranges. However, capsicums

and green ants (found in the far north of Australia and an important nu-
tritional supplement for Aboriginal children living in the bush) are also
a good source of vitamin C, and children could thus get all their required
vitamin C from eating foods other than oranges. That is, children could
also get from mothers and/or other close adults all the positives offered
by high paternal involvement.
Social fathering: A unique role? One would have to extend this posi-
tion to argue that paternal involvement offers something unique to chil-
drens outcomes, and there is nothing unequivocal within the research
literature that suggests this is in fact the case (Flood, 2003). Ross Parke
(2002, 2004), in the context of two comprehensive reviews of parenting
in the new millennium and recent developments in family research, has
addressed the uniqueness of fathers roles in child development and has
come up with different answers each time (just two years apart). In his
earlier review, the only research finding Parke offered in ostensible sup-
port for fathers exhibiting a unique effect on their childrens develop-
ment (2002: 76) was a citation to a somewhat dated book by Pedersen
(1980), but Parke provided no explanation of what Pedersen had found
that unique role to be. Rather, he cites Silverstein and Auerbach and
concludes . . . at this point, it seems . . . the data are unclear about the
uniqueness or distinctiveness of fathers (2002: 76).
An examination of Pedersens book reveals an historically interesting,
edited collection of parent-infant relationship research from the 1970s.
The five research studies reported in the book reflect traditional, nuclear
family life with almost all participating families white, middle-class, and
structured around mothers full engagement in home duties and full-time
child care, with fathers in full-time external employment. In summarising
the research findings Pedersen concluded, contrary to Parkes implica-
tion that the Pedersen collection had revealed unique characteristics to fa-
thers involvement, that . . . in most important respects the parent-infant
relationship is neither distinctly maternal nor paternal (1980: 149). This
early infant parent research found that mothers spent more time in
caregiving activities and smiled and verbalised more with their infants
and toddlers, whereas the fathers style of play was more physical, unpre-
dictable, enjoyable and engaging. Given that the children spent so much
less time with their fathers than their mothers it is hardly surprising that
the infants enjoyed some rough and fun play with their dads when they fi-
nally returned home from work. This is hardly strong evidence for a
unique contribution to child development.
16 JOURNAL OF FEMINIST FAMILY THERAPY

Two years later, in an even more comprehensive review, Parke was

still on the trail for a unique paternal role, and had reversed his conclu-
sion (although he no longer cited Pedersen): . . . evidence continues
to mount that fathers both play distinctive roles in families and have
unique effects after controlling for maternal effects (p. 370). How-
ever, when looking into the one citation Parke gives to support this as-
sertion we find that it too is a review article (Marsiglio, Amato, Day, &
Lamb, 2000), and that Parke provides no further evidence for his posi-
tion.
Again, we are left doing the detective work to unravel the research
that Marsiglio has reviewed, and we still fail to find any evidence of
unique paternal contribution to child development. Fathering, it ap-
pears, in comparison to mothering, is uniquely sensitive to contextual
influences (Doherty, Kouneski, & Erikson, 1998; Marsiglio et al.,
2000: 289). Nowhere in Marsiglio et al.s review is there an explanation
of Doherty et al.s finding and nor is there any conclusion that fathers
play a unique role. A more accurate conclusion that Parke could have
drawn from Marsiglios review is in fact the conclusion that Marsiglio
et al. came to themselves, which is still asking the all important question
without offering any definitive answer: A significant, complex and po-
liticized theme that inevitably will continue to shape some research
agendas focuses on whether men have gendered practices as fathers
that uniquely contribute to their childrens development (Marsiglio et
al., 2000, p. 1185).
Doherty et al.s conceptual framework of responsible fathering high-
lights contextual factors such as lack of income and unemployment as
having particularly negative effects on fathering. Cultural expectations
such as the capacity to provide economic support for ones family do
impact on fathering, as does social support from childrens mothers. So,
whilst it is correct to say that Doherty et al. concluded that fathering is
uniquely sensitive to contextual influences, they say nothing about the
unique or distinctive role of fathering and actually concluded with a
disclaimer that although they were interested in factors that promoted
active and involved fathering, they were not reviewing the effects of
such fathering on children, and significantly for the current argu-
ment, . . . nor do we take a position on whether there are essential char-
acteristics of fathering versus mothering or whether having parents of
two genders is necessary for the well-being of children (Doherty,
Kouneski, & Erickson, 1998: 289).
It does seem that the jury is still out on the uniqueness and distinctive-
ness of fathers contributions to child development. But it also appears
 Amaryll Perlesz 17

that the pro-father lobby can sometimes be tempted to present research

findings in ways that appear to exaggerate the uniqueness of the pater-
nity role within families.
Male Role-ModellingA Myth? Strengthening the father-child bond
by having fathers more involved in child-rearing is also another guise
for privileging male role-modelling. The difference here though is that
it is a particular type of male role-modelling that is being recommended;
one in which fathers model nurturing and care activities. There is abso-
lutely nothing wrong with that, and no doubt we, or at least society,
would be better off with men more comfortable adopting caring roles.
But Silverstein and Auerbach cant have it both ways; either the need
for male role models is a myth, or its not.
Probably the strongest fear underlying father absence is not who
will look after the children when their mothers are at work? but
rather how will boys learn how to be men without fathers? If we can
imagine that our politicians represent the voice of the people, it is in-
structive to review what the male leaders of the two major parties
(social conservative Liberal Party and the slightly less socially con-
servative Labor Party) have to say about male role models.
Australias Prime Minister, John Howard, in 2003 expressed his con-
cern on mainstream popular talkback radio as follows:

I am very worried and many people are worried [tape break] boys
out of broken families end up not having effective male role mod-
els, perhaps ever . . . They live with their mother, they dont have
older brothers or uncles or male grandparent(s) with whom they
can identify, and they go to schools now where there are very few
male teachers. They can often be 15 or 16, and perhaps never, be-
fore they find a male role model and it does result in perhaps not
the most balanced upbringing, and thats something that we
should try as a society to see if we can address. (cited in Smyth,
2004, p. 34)

Mark Latham, leader of the Australian Labor Party, shares a similar

view: Australian boys (do) not have enough men in their lives as posi-
tive role models . . . I see this in my own community in south-western
Sydney: boys who have gone off the rails and lost touch with a thing
called society (The Age newspaper 30.1.04).
An alternative view, similar to the argument presented in this paper,
is provided by Australian Democrat Senator Brian Greig:
18 JOURNAL OF FEMINIST FAMILY THERAPY

Behind the arguments of Latham and Howard lie sexism and ho-
mophobia. What is this crisis of masculinity we keep hearing so
much about, and where do we locate it? Mark Latham says its
about single-parent families, and you find it where boys grow up
without dads. John Howard says its about same-sex couples
adopting children, and you find it with lesbians raising sons. The
Catholic Church says its about an abundance of women teachers,
and you find it in classrooms without male role models. Scratch
the surface of these arguments, and what you really find is good
old-fashioned sexism and homophobia. The unstated concern
about boys being raised by single mums, living in lesbian house-
holds and taught by female teachers, is the notion that this pro-
duces an effeminisation of males, and the fear it may lead to
homosexuality itself. The myth of the overbearing mother and
distant father as the cause of male homosexuality is alive and
well. Thus, the crisis in masculinity is little more than a diver-
sionary debate that hides what more properly might be regarded
as the real crisis of masculinity. That is, many mens general anxi-
ety about homosexuality and discomfort with female authority.
(The Age, 2 April, 2004)

In a similar vein to Greigs position, Olga Silverstein (not Louise

Silverstein who we have been studying here) and Beth Rashbaum
(1994) propose what appears to be a more straightforward solution to
father absence and the absence of male role modelsbut is clearly a sub-
jugated social discourseand thats simply to value the mother-son
bond. This is not an either/or position. If it is women who end up raising
children post-separation and divorce, or by single-parenting by choice,
why not value what they have to offer? Mothers can teach their sons a
wide range of behaviours that dont need to be categorised down tradi-
tionally feminine or masculine lines; empathy, compassion, toughness,
rationality, autonomy, connectedness. Silverstein and Rashbaum dont
dismiss the idea of strengthening fathers contact with their children
(sons in particular), they just dont privilege that contact over the
mother-son connection. Its the flip side to Silverstein and Auerbachs
position that fathers can also teach their sons a wide range of behaviours
that dont need to be categorised down traditionally feminine or mascu-
line lines. Which brings us back to where we started, it is not mothers or
fathers who are essential to child-rearing, it is the presence of a caring,
loving, responsible, nurturing, low conflict, non-abusive, responsive
parent.
 Amaryll Perlesz 19

Silverstein and Rashbaum argue that boys dont need to learn a

gendered, sexual identity. They are born male, and from that will follow
the gendered and sexual aspects of their masculinity . . . what they do ac-
quire over time . . . is a social definition of masculinity (1994: 86-87).
This position is supported by reviews of fatherhood research that indi-
cate that boys without fathers develop normally in terms of gender role
development and masculine identity (Flood, 2003: 24).

Reconstructing Social Institutions

Behind Silverstein and Auerbachs ostensibly radical reconstruction

of fathering is the desire to shift cultural assumptions and actual social
practices around the gendered division of labour. But it is inevitable that
men will continue to be involved in shared parenting with women (via
marriage, cohabiting or single-fathering). Mothers will have greater op-
portunity to actively participate within the workforce, but the social re-
ality has been that women then end up working not only within the
public domain but continue to take on greater domestic responsibilities
than their male partners (Brannen & Moss, 1987; Russell et al., 1999: 3).
Another reason why the shifting patterns of gendered employment and
child-care are no real challenge to patriarchy is that men simply get
more control and power within families, because instead of being mar-
ginalised from the emotional and nurturing sphere, they become more
central within both the public and private domains. Smart (1997) argues
that legislative attempts to create co-operative, co-parenting arrange-
ments that are essentially designed to get fathers more involved in
childcare emotionally as well as financially, amounts to social engi-
neering to recreate patriarchal nuclear families. Such policy and legal
reforms are generally designed to restabilise and normalise marriage
and reinstate more traditional forms of family life.

Provide More Government Funding to All Families with Children

Who can argue that the government should provide more funding to
families with children? However, a more radical position would be to
recommend that in order to increase family diversity and child-rearing
optionsgiven that heterosexual nuclear parenting does not inevitably
produce good outcomes for childrengovernments should support new
transformative family arrangements and non-patriarchal family forma-
tion. Greater income support should be given to families without fathers
20 JOURNAL OF FEMINIST FAMILY THERAPY

rather than working on legislative and policy reforms to encourage

absent fathers back into families.
The Australian Governments recent interest in adopting a legal pre-
sumption of 50/50 joint residence or automatic, equally shared time for
children with each parent post-divorce, is a good example of an attempt at
legislative reform (or social engineeringSmart, 1997) that would lead
to fathers having more automatic involvement in their childrens lives
post-divorce. The Parliamentary Committee investigating this possible
legal reform in the end favoured a creation of shared parental responsi-
bility rather than 50/50 timeshare of children (Smyth, Caruana, & Ferro,
2004). The thinking behind their decision is based on the belief that it is in
the interests of children to be in a stable home environment rather than be
exposed to high parental conflict or parental neglect and abuse that could
be harmful; just for the sake of having fathers more automatically in-
volved in their childrens lives (Smyth et al., 2004).
If health, welfare, and legal professionals were to really embrace the
idea that children can be happily and productively raised without fa-
thers, the social and legal landscape of the postmodern family would
look very different. But there is a reticence to acknowledge those who
do family differently, and to accept these contemporary families as a
legitimate alternative to patriarchal, nuclear family formation.

DE NOVO LESBIAN PARENTED FAMILIES:

POSTMODERN FAMILY FORMATION PAR EXCELLENCE

Lesbian parents and their children position themselves on a contin-

uum of relatedness to their male donors who choose, in negotiation
with lesbian mothers, various levels of father involvement and social
parenting roles from complete anonymity to shared parenting arrange-
ments (Dempsey, 2004; Hogben & Coupland, 2000). The following
brief case study is taken from a Victorian lesbian-led family research
project in which multi-generational, in-depth interviews were carried
out with twenty families.7 The reasoning behind presenting this one
case is to illustrate how members in a particular de novo lesbian family
construct their family life in non-patriarchal ways. No attempt is made
to generalise this experience to other postmodern family formation, or
other lesbian families, because it is the very nature of the fluidity, diver-
sity, and ambiguity within non-traditional families that marks them as
postmodern and not of a single type.
 Amaryll Perlesz 21

Lucy and Sarah, both in their 40s, are the birth mother and lesbian
co-parent of Wendy, 13 years old at the time of interview. Lucy and Sa-
rah have been partners for around 15 years, and Lillian, also a lesbian, is
Wendys biological grandmother. All three women and Wendy were
present at the research interview.
In order to create their family, Lucy arranged for an anonymous, al-
truistic sperm donation via a friend. Lucy had spoken to the donor on the
phone at the time she began the process of insemination and she and Sa-
rah had had contact with him only through that short insemination pro-
cess. When Wendy was two and a half, she began asking questions
about her donor (the childs language) and wanted to meet him. They ar-
ranged this through a friend, and that was the first time Lillian and
Wendy had seen him. After the one meeting with Wendy he had no fur-
ther involvement and she never requested to see him again, and they
only hear of him now through friends.
Wendy has never yearned for her biological donor to be a social par-
ent or involved father. In Wendys view its normal to be raised by
lesbians, and when asked about her family by friends and peers at
school, she answers: . . . I just (say) I have two mums. No one in the
family has ever hidden the fact that Wendys parents are lesbian, and the
family is also out at the school:

Lucy: So for us you know weve been told by her teachers to be re-
ally proud of her, like all her teachers say that she is a great per-
son. And so why is she such a great person? And I think, or one of
them is because she just is, you are a great person, and also look-
ing at how we have parented. Weve really um . . .

Wendy: Done a good job (lots of laugher).

Lillian: Well it wasnt the donor (more laughing).

Lucy: Yeah, and just looking at when the kids start to worry and
get hung up about not having a father and how, and I just think,
that just a little message out there is to really just say who you are
and be proud of your family and um, and to not to hide it. Because I
think once you start hiding it then you feel like there is a secret and
theres something wrong with you, and how can you let your kid
know that this is fine, this is good, this is normal, this is ordinary
but at the same time giving the message that this is a terrible secret
and you mustnt tell anybody.
22 JOURNAL OF FEMINIST FAMILY THERAPY

It is not just the lesbian parents who embrace this theme of accepting
and being proud of who you are and how youre doing family, but the
grandmother too has a unique way of describing her family as she tries
to reach beyond the boundaries of patriarchy:

. . . well you can be connected by blood and you can be connected

by love and sometimes when you are lucky you are connected by
blood and love . . . So I personally have blood connections, love
connections and blood and love connections . . . To me its a his-
tory of love . . . I just think were flexible, were not stuck in this is
what patriarchy says family looks like basically . . .

Even as early as a five year old, Wendy was clear and open about her
origins:

. . . at the beginning of her schooling . . . when I came to pick her

up the Principal . . . said oh Ive just had the longest argument
with your daughter. I told her she has got a father and shes
been insisting she hasnt. And the Principal said, she says
shes got a donor and Ive told her that everyone has to have a
father because you couldnt have been born without a father
and shes been insisting that she hasnt got one . . . (Birth
mother)

This is a family who is really doing family in a non-patriarchal way.

Wendy is comfortable with her lesbian-parenting heritage, she is
non-heterosexist in her views of families and parenting, and she has a
strong narrative about donors contributing to conception rather than fa-
thers being necessary to make families complete. Her biological
mother tells the following story:

Lucy: . . . when we went on holidays, every time you go to an ac-

commodation place they always have a bible in the drawer. And
one time she got Sarah (lesbian co-parent) to read her the bible
and um, (Sarah) said oh Mary had a virgin birth and (Wendy)
said whats that? and we told her and then she said well Jo-
seph must be the donor!

A re-visioning of the virgin birth with Joseph as the donor and

Wendys unselfconscious sense of normality with her lesbian moth-
ers gives us a taste of a postmodern family; there are many possibili-
 Amaryll Perlesz 23

ties for fathering, mothering, parenting, and conception, and the

lived experience of being parented by lesbians is defocused or be-
comes a non-issue:

Lucy: Its a non-issue. Its actually a non-issue.

Interviewer: How do you account for that, that it has been an ab-
solute non-issue?

Sarah: She was born into it I think. When you are born into it you
dont know any different do you really?

Lucy: Thats what she said to you its normal.

We cannot assume though that all children from de novo lesbian-led

families will adopt similar views, and there is much scope here for further
research. When my own daughter, also from a de novo lesbian family,
read my earlier description of our own differences in our views of family,
she laughed and said: Oh Mum, thats how I used to think when I was
much younger, but I dont think like that anymore. The only reason I
sometimes describe my family like that now is because its easier to do it
that way, like when Im practising for a French oral. How would I de-
scribe being in a lesbian family and all the complex parts of my extended
family to a French examinerI havent got a good enough vocab?! I
agree with my daughter too that when she was younger, in her earlier
teens and in her early years of high school, that she had probably internal-
ised homophobic and heterosexist messages about legitimate family for-
mation that left her feeling more fearful of discrimination and
embarrassed about her identity as a daughter of lesbian parents. Now that
she is older and has recently left school, this cautiousness about com-
ing-out is less of an issue.8 There are obvious differences too between
my daughter and Wendy, both children raised in de novo lesbian families,
in that the former has always known her father and had meaningful con-
tact with him, whereas the latter has had virtually no contact with her do-
nor. There are many ways of doing family.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FEMINIST FAMILY THERAPISTS

Feminist family therapists pay much attention to their biases and as-
sumptions around gender, race, power, class, sexuality, and disenfran-
24 JOURNAL OF FEMINIST FAMILY THERAPY

chised families (Silverstein & Goodrich, 2003). A challenge raised in

work with lesbian and single-parented families and other marginalised
families, or any family for that matter (whether the therapist is lesbian or
straight), is locating and making explicit ones own assumptions about
the role of fathers in families, and exploring with clients their own views.
The following case vignette highlights how unarticulated assumptions
can constrain behaviour change.

I have been seeing a young single mother, Ella, in her late 20s
with her five year-old son, Tommy in therapy. Ella has expressed
concerns about Tommys tantrums. He is bossy at home and at
kindergarten, angry, has few friends, cries and screams and is
constantly demanding of attention. Ella also cries and yells a lot at
home and is worried that she might seriously hurt and frighten
Tommy if she loses her temper with him. Ella has a boyfriend
Frank who is frequently violent when he visits and stays over.
Franks violence is more in his emotional control and intimidation
of both Ella and Tommy (although he did physically beat up the
pizza delivery boy in front of Ella which made her very scared).
Tommy is attached to Frank and enjoys playing with him, but is
scared and anxious about his intimidating behaviour. Ella partic-
ularly likes the fact that Tommy loves Frank, and it is for this rea-
son that she allows Frank to continue to visit. Despite Franks
violence Ella maintains a relationship with him because she be-
lieves that she has let Tommy down by not having a stable fa-
ther-presence in the family. Tommys biological father left a few
weeks after his birth and neither Tommy nor Ella have seen him
since. The therapy focuses on Ellas strengths as a single parent
and her parenting skills. It is in the deconstructing of Ellas beliefs
about the role Frank plays in her family that she becomes more
aware that her desire to have a male role model for her son, even
though he is not a particularly good role model, comes from her
belief that sons should be raised by fathers, not just mothers. At the
point that she is able to relinquish her unsatisfying and dangerous
relationship with Frank she is also beginning to acknowledge that
she may actually have an emotional connectedness with Tommy, a
capacity to play with him and read to him, and competent
parenting skills that make Tommy feel loved, safe, non-scared,
non-anxious, and help him relate better to other children. In the
family therapy we have focussed on the positive attributes of a
 Amaryll Perlesz 25

mother-son relationship without needing to privilege a father-son

connection or promote the necessity of male role modelling.

Awareness of constraining social constructions and personal beliefs

about the significance of the role of fathers in family life can underlie
collaborative explorations with clients around the particular positive
roles fathers might play in their childrens lives and which of these roles
could be supported or enhanced. On the other hand, there are also those
instances worthy of exploration with clients where the fathers (read
here step-father, boy-friend, donor, donor/father, etc.) involvement in
the family is being supported and maintainedsometimes by both the
therapist and other family membersbecause of a misleading prescrip-
tive belief that he should be there, even though the father-child relation-
ship is clearly not being experienced as positive, responsible, social
fathering in the best interests of the child.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

So, here I conclude the paper I didnt want to write! It would be an un-
fortunate ending if the reader believed this to be an anti-male, anti-father
discourse. On the contrary, this story and critique have been set out to
show that father absence is not a monolithic entity and that fathers come
into and out of childrens lives in a myriad of ways, just as they some-
times dont have a presence in family life right from the beginning. When
creating fathering arrangements post heterosexual separation and divorce
and even in heterosexual single mothering, the role of social paternity
should be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Similarly, lesbian mothers
who choose to parent without involved fathers ought not feel or believe
that they have created a deficit model of family life for their children.
There is no social, psychological or developmental justification to
legislate for father presence. There is no research-based credibility in
promoting patriarchal, nuclear family formation as a preferred social
and family structure to optimise childrens emotional, social, physical,
and economic outcomes. The political and social pretext that underlines
father absence fear is just that; a pretext to retain the hegemony of pa-
triarchal nuclear family life and restore fathers to their rightful posi-
tions of power and control within families. Historically, patriarchal
power and control, or the rule of the father, has had various shapes and
forms, beginning with ownership of women and children, providing
moral authority and economic provision, and more recently co-opted
26 JOURNAL OF FEMINIST FAMILY THERAPY

emotional guidance and care (Sclater, Bainham, & Richards, 1999).

Whilst most of these roles, aside from actual ownership, are seemingly
benign, fathers do not have automatic rights and an entitlement to these
roles for the sake of their children. They may want more involvement in
family life for their own sake, but in determining what is in the best in-
terests of the child/ren, fathers social and emotional needs ought not be
privileged. Responsible, caring, nurturing, financially secure, non-abu-
sive adults (non-specifically gendered) can provide optimal parenting
outcomes for children in diverse and creative ways of doing family;
including both the absence and presence of fathers.

NOTES
1. De novo lesbian families refers to lesbian parents who have conceived children
through known or unknown donors in the context of their current lesbian partnership,
whereas children raised by lesbian parents post-heterosexual separation and divorce
are more often described as lesbian step-families. Single lesbians and their children
could have their roots in both de novo and step-family structures. The term de novo
lesbian family was coined by Dr. Ruth McNair (personal communication), though it is
important to note that members of lesbian-parented families are likely to make quite
different distinctions and use different labels for themselves.
2. In counter-point to this essentialist notion of the family is the idea of family as a
verb rather than as a noun (Stiles, 2002) supporting a more fluid, ambiguous, and transi-
tional language around family (Stacey, 1998; Weeks, Heaphy, & Donovan, 2001).
3. This study was funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Grant,
and the Victorian Association of Family Therapists (VAFT). The research method and
participants in this study have been reported on elsewhere (Perlesz et al., 2004).
4. Of course individual beliefs and behaviour are intimately affected and shaped by
internalised social constructions.
5. A nuclear family includes two generations of biologically related people, typi-
cally a man and a woman, who maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and
one or more children, who are the children of these two adults (Bessant & Watts,
1999:124). Contemporary family arrangements (homosexual or heterosexual) are now
much more diverse and fluid than this.
6. Australian data summarised here has been compiled from such sources as the
Australian Census, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) figures, and survey data
from family research conducted at the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS).
7. The transcripts quoted in the current paper are from an Australian Research
Council and Victorian Association of Family Therapists funded research project on
lesbian-parented families (research teamAmaryll Perlesz, Rhonda Brown, Ruth
McNair, Jo Lindsay, David de Vaus and Marion Pitts). Full details of the study and
sample are found in Perlesz et al., 2004.
8. Research on school experiences of children raised in lesbian-led families indi-
cates that primary school aged children and children in their late-teens are less con-
cerned about discrimination and harassment at school than teenagers around 13 to 16
years (Lindsay, Perlesz, Brown et al., 2004; Perlesz & McNair, 2004).
 Amaryll Perlesz 27

REFERENCES
Blankenhorn, D. (1995). Fatherless America: Confronting our most urgent social
problems. New York: Basic Books.
Brannen, J., & Moss, P. (1987). Fathers in dual earner householdsthrough mothers
eyes. In C. Lewis & M. OBrien (Eds.), Reassessing fatherhood: New observations
on fathers and the modern family. London: Sage.
Dempsey, D. (2004). Donor, father or parent? Conceiving paternity in the Australian
family Court. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 18(1), 76-102.
de Vaus, D. (2004). Diversity and change in Australian families. Melbourne: Austra-
lian Institute of Family Studies.
Doherty, W. J., Kouneski, E. F., & Erickson, M. F. (1998). Responsible fathering: An
overview and conceptual framework. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
60(May), 277-292.
Engle, P. L., & Breaux, C. (1998). Fathers involvement with children: Perspectives
from developing countries. Social Policy Report: Society for Research in Child De-
velopment, XII, 1-23.
Flood, M. (2003). Fatherhood and fatherlessness. Canberra: The Australia Institute.
Hetherington, E. M., Bridges, M., & Insabella, G. M. (1998). What matters? What does
not? Five perspectives on the associations between marital transitions and chil-
drens adjustment. American Psychologist, 53(February), 167-184.
Hogben, S., & Coupland, J. (2000). Egg seeks sperm. End of story . . .?: Articulating gay
parenting in small ads for reproductive partners. Discourse and Society, 11(4), 459-485.
Howard, J. (2001). Mothers and sons: Bringing up boys as a sole parent. Melbourne:
Lothian.
Lamb, M. E. (1997). Fathers and child development: An introductory overview and
guide. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 1-18).
New York: Wiley.
Leupnitz, D. (1988). The family interpreted. Psychoanalysis, feminism and family ther-
apy. New York: Basic Books.
Lindsay, J., Perlesz, A., Brown, R., McNair, R., de Vaus, D., & Pitts, M. (2004). Stigma
or respect: Lesbian-parented families negotiating the school setting. Manuscript
under review.
Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Scholarship on father-
hood in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of Marriage & Family, 62, 1173-1191.
Mouzos, J. (1999). Femicide: The Killing of Women in Australia 1989-1998 (No. 18).
Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Parke, R. D. (2002). Parenting in the new millennium: Prospects, promises, and pit-
falls. In J. P. McHale & W. S. Grolnick (Eds.), Retrospect and prospect in the psy-
chological study of families (pp. 65-93). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Parke, R. D. (2004). Development in the family. Annual Review of Psychology, 55,
365-399.
Patterson, C. (1995). Sexual orientation and human development: An overview. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 31, 3-11.
Patterson, C. J., & Chan, R. W. (1997). Gay fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of
the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 245-260). New York: Wiley.
28 JOURNAL OF FEMINIST FAMILY THERAPY

Pease, B. (2002). Men and gender relations. Melbourne: Tertiary Press.

Pedersen, F. A. (Ed.). (1980). The father-infant relationship: Observational studies in
the family setting. New York: Praeger.
Perlesz, A., & McNair, R. (2004) Lesbian parenting: Insiders voices. Australian &
New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 25(2),129-140.
Perlesz, A., Brown, R., Lindsay, J., McNair, R., de Vaus, D., & Pitts, M. (2004). Family
in transition: Parents, children and grandparents in lesbian families give meaning
to doing family. Manuscript under review.
Pleck, J. H. (1993). Are family supportive employer policies relevant to men? In J. C.
Hood (Ed.), Men, work, and family (pp. 217-237). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Popenoe, D. (1996). Life without father. New York: Pressler Press.
Pruett, K. D. (1989). The nurturing male: A longitudinal study of primary nurturing fa-
thers. In S. H. Cath, A. Gurwitt & L. Gunsberg (Eds.), Fathers and their families.
Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
Russell, G., Barclay, L., Edgecombe, G., Donovan, J., Habib, G., Callaghan, H. et al.
(1999). Fitting fathers into families: Men and the fatherhood role in contemporary Aus-
tralia. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services.
Salter, A. C. (1995). Transforming trauma. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sclater, S. D., Bainham, A., & Richards, M. (1999). Introduction. In A. Bainham, S. D.
Sclater & M. Richards (Eds.), What is a parent? A socio-legal analysis. Oxford:
Hart Publishing.
Silverstein, L. B. (2002). Fathers and families. In J. P. McHale & W. S. Grolnick
(Eds.), Retrospect and prospect in the study of families. Mahwah, New Jersey: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates.
Silverstein, L., & Auerbach, C. (1999). Deconstructing the essential father. American
Psychologist, 54(6), 397-407.
Silverstein, L. B., & Goodrich, T. J. (Eds). (2003). Feminist family therapy: Empower-
ment in social context. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Silverstein, O., & Rashbaum, B. (1994). The courage to raise good men. New York:
Viking.
Smart, C. (1997). Wishful thinking and harmful tinkering: Sociological reflections on
family policy. Journal of Social Policy, 26(3), 301-321.
Smuts, B. B., & Gubernick, D. J. (1992). Male-infant relationships in nonhuman pri-
mates: Paternal investment or mating effort? In B. S. Hewlett (Ed.), Father-child
relations: Cultural and biosocial contexts (pp. 1-31). New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.
Smyth, B. (Ed.). (2004). Parent-Child Contact and Post-Separation Parenting Ar-
rangements (Vol. Research Report No. 9). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Fam-
ily Studies.
Smyth, B., Caruana, C., & Ferro, A. (2004). Fifty-fifty care. In B. Smyth (Ed.), Par-
ent-child contact and post-separation parenting arrangements (Vol. Research Re-
port No. 9, pp. 17-30). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Snow, J. E. (2004) How it feels to have a gay or lesbian parent: A book by kids for kids
of all ages. New York: Harrington Park Press.
 Amaryll Perlesz 29

Stacey, J. (1998). Gay and lesbian families: Queer like us. In M. A. Mason, A. Sholnick
& S. D. Sugarman (Eds.), All our families new policies for a new century: A report
of the berkley family forum (pp. 117-143). New York: Oxford University Press.
Stiles, S. (2002). Family as a verb. In D. Denborough (Ed.), Queer counselling and
narrative practice (pp. 15-19). Adelaide, SA: Dulwich Centre Publications.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.),
Sexual Selection and the descent of man 1871-1971 (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine-
Atherton.
Weeks, J., Heaphy, B., & Donovan, C. (2001). Same sex intimacies: Families of choice
and other life experiments. London: Routledge.
Wilson, K. C. (2003). Male nurturing: What is known and why it matters. Canada: Har-
binger Press.

SUBMITTED: 10/20/04
REVISED: 01/09/05
ACCEPTED: 01/19/05

For FACULTY/PROFESSIONALS with journal subscription

recommendation authority for their institutional library . . .
If you have read a reprint or photocopy of this article, would you like to
make sure that your library also subscribes to this journal? If you have
the authority to recommend subscriptions to your library, we will send you
a free complete (print edition) sample copy for review with your librarian.
1. Fill out the form below and make sure that you type or write out clearly both the name
of the journal and your own name and address. Or send your request via e-mail to
docdelivery@haworthpress.com including in the subject line Sample Copy Request
and the title of this journal.
2. Make sure to include your name and complete postal mailing address as well as your
institutional/agency library name in the text of your e-mail.
[Please note: we cannot mail specific journal samples, such as the issue in which a specific article appears.
Sample issues are provided with the hope that you might review a possible subscription/e-subscription with
your institution's librarian. There is no charge for an institution/campus-wide electronic subscription
concurrent with the archival print edition subscription.]

Please send me a complimentary sample of this journal:

(please write complete journal title heredo not leave blank)

I will show this journal to our institutional or agency library for a possible subscription.
Institution/Agency Library: ______________________________________________
Name: _____________________________________________________________
Institution: __________________________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________________
City: ____________________ State: __________ Zip: ____________________
Return to: Sample Copy Department, The Haworth Press, Inc.,
10 Alice Street, Binghamton, NY 13904-1580