Sever kn tat opr 207 he Am Lesbian Mothers With Planned Families: A Comparative Study of Internalized Homophobia and Social Support Kathleen A. DeMino, DSW ‘Adelphi University George Appleby, DSW, PhD Southern Connectcit State Univesity Deborah Fisk, MSW Yale University “This study compared the perception of socal suppor and the degree of internalized homophobis for wo <éemographically similar groups: lesbians with planned Families and lesbians who did not have children, Results found that lesbians with planned families perceived significantly less socal support from fiends ‘overall from gay men and lesbian fends spcifially, and more support from thee families of-rigin, than lesbians who didnot have children. Lesbians with planed families also epored significantly higher {neralized homophabi specific ta disclosure ofsexulidemiestion The authors suggest hat scective disclosure may be an adaptive response rather than 1 true measure of internalized homophobia, ‘Keywords: lesbian mothers, intemalized homophobia, socal support LLesbian-headed planned families are created when lesbians choose motherhood in the context of a commited lesbian relation- ship through birth, adoption, or coparenting. The increase in the number of lesbians having children, first noted in the literature in the mid-1990s (Flaks, Fischer, Masterpasque, & Joseph, 1995; Patterson, 1995), has been attributed to the wider availabilty of altemative methods of insemination (Gartrell et al, 1996; 1999). ‘The legalization of same-sex, second-parent adoption in an in- creasing number of states may also contribute to this growing trend. Given the growing number of lesbian-headed planned fam- ilies, additional research is needed to explore how these families ‘manage the challenges imposed on them as a nontraditional family constellation and their use of social supports not only to buffer against internalized homophobia, but also to allay the stres related to the major life stage transition to parenthood Internalized Homophobia Regardless of parental status, social bias is one of the most pressing issues facing lesbians today. Both heterosexism and ho- ‘mophobia promote bias by defining normative behavior as exclu- sively heterosexual (Appleby, 1995; Appleby & Anastas, 1998; Herek, 1992, 1998; Rothblum & Bond, 1996). Homophobia, how- fever, goes further in its endorsement of negative attitudes and stereotypes that justify fear and hatred of gay men and lesbians (Pain & Disney, 1995). These ideologies provide the foundation for public policy that justifies and legitimizes diserimination against same-sex families by denying them more than 1,100 fed- Kathleen A. DeMino, DSW, Adelphi University: George Appleby, DSW, PRD, Southern Consetiut State University; Deborah Fisk, MSW, Department of Psychaiy, Yale Univesity For reprints and correspondence: Kathleen A. DeMino DSW, 41 Maple: hurst Rod, Guilford, CT 06437. E-mail: kdemino@sbeglobl net 16s eral rights and protections, as well as hundreds of additional benefits in their state of residence (Dougherty, 2006), ‘As social norms shape self-perception, the way one views one: self is largely dictated by what are understood to be socially acceptable beliefs and behaviors (Goffman, 1963; Shidlo, 1994), ‘When lesbians and gay men assimilate the prevailing societal bias against homosexuality, they experience internalized homophobia (Nungesser, 1983; Shidlo, 1994; Troiden, 1989; Wilson, 2000) Internalized homophobia is a multidimensional construct that en- compasses feelings about oneself as gay of lesbian, perceptions about other's views of homosexuality, connection with gay and lesbian peers, and disclosure of sexual identity (Mildner, 2001; Nungesser, 1983; Ross & Rosser, 1996; Szymanski, 2002), The internalization of societal homophobia has been described as a three-stage process, beginning with the recognition that one is disqualified by the social majority, coping with the treatment received by nonstigmatized others, and controlling disclosure of sexual identity (Nungesser, 1983) Interalized homophobia may have a damaging impact on sexual identity development (Frock, 2000; Szymanski, Chung, & Balsam, 2001) and social suppor (Earle, 2000; Herck, 1998; McGregor & Carver, 2001; Nicolson & Long, 1990; Shidlo, 1994; Szymanski, 2002). Interalized homo- phobia has also been associated with lower levels of disclosure of sexual orientation (Herek, 1998; McGregor & Carver, 200I; Radonsky & Borders, 1995; Szymanski et al, 2001) and greater levels of passing as heterosexual (Nungesser, 1983; Szymanski et al, 2001). ‘Although some studies have suggested that nondisclosure is a key component in the prediction of internalized homophobia (Mitdner, 2001; Nungesser, 1983; Ross & Rosser, 1996), other researchers have acknowledged that disclosure of sexual identity may be inhibited by stigma and diserimination (Anderson & Mavis, 1996; Fassinger, 1991; Szymanski & Chung, 2001; ‘Waldner & Magruder, 1999) and complicated by the assumption of hheterosexism (Gartrell et al, 1999; Hare, 1994; Parks, 1998)166 DeMINO, APPLEBY, AND FISK Previous research has emphasized that it is essential to consider the disclosure of sexual orientation, or “coming out,” and issues of parenting within the context of a heterosexist and homophobic society (Rothblum & Bond, 1996). Because heterosexism assumes all women with children are heterosexual (Rich, 1980), lesbians with children may elicit the assumption of heterosexuality more often than lesbians who do not have children (Gartel etal, 1999; Hare, 1994; Parks, 1998). Eighty-five percent of lesbian mothers ‘who participated in the National Lesbian Family Study reported experiencing assumptions of heterosexuality when accompanied by their child, and almost one quarter reported that they liked “fitting in (with heterosexual mothers]” because ofthe assumption of heterosexuality (Gartell, et al. 1999), Because sexual orientation is not necessarily publicly identifi able, some lesbians may choose to hide their sexual orientation in order to past as heterosexual. The choice to pass as heterosexual maintains nondisclosure of sexual orientation under the guise of heterosexuality (Gartell eta, 1999, 1996; Hare, 1994; Lambert, 2002; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). Although passing may reduce social incongruence (Cass, 1979), nondisclosure of sexuality iden tity has been associated with a high level of internalized homo- phobia (Nungesser, 1983; Szymanski, 2002) and less social sup- port (Nicolson & Long, 1990; Shido, 1994). Lesbians with planned families face pervasive discrimination based not only their sexual orientation, but also on their status as a lesbian mother. These lesbian mothers face bias not only from the dominant heterosexist society, but may also feel less weleome inthe lesbian community. Lesbians with planned families continue to represent a minority within the lesbian population. Their child- centered lifestyles may be so divergent from the lifestyles of lesbians who do not have children that they may be challenged to find support within the lesbian community. Early writings placed motherhood at odds with the beliefs and values of the radical lesbian feminist movement; that motherhood was antithetical to lesbian identity (Brown, 1995; Donaldson, 2000; Faderman, 1984; later, 1995). Unable to-access the lesbian community asa postive reference group and at odds with the dictates of the dominant heterosexual culture, lesbian mothers and their families are vul- erable to social stigma and institutionally supported diserimina: ‘ion that denies their families social and legal recognition in many arenas (Blumenfeld, 1992). ‘More recent research suggests that lesbian identification and motherhood are not mutually exclusive personal identities as was ‘once thought. The National Lesbian Family Studies 1, 2, & 3 ‘Gartrell et al, 1996, 1999, 2000), a longitudinal study that fol- lowed lesbian mothers with children conceived by donor insemi- nation, found that although 42% of lesbian mothers surveyed in Study 2 felt unwelcome in the lesbian community (Gartrell etal, 1999), 87% of these lesbian mothers were active in the lesbian, ‘community atthe time of data collection for Study 3 (Gartell et al, 2000). 'As mothers, these lesbians may additionally experience in creased visibility (Gartrell et al., 1999) and contact with main- stream society after having children (Donaldson, 2000). As nor- ‘mative issues related to children arise, lesbian mothers may be required to engage in social intercourse and networking that re. ‘vals the nontraditional composition oftheir family. This increased visibility may leave lesbian mothers more vulnerable to internal- iaation of the dominant narrative that questions the legitimacy of their families and their efficacy as parents. Exposed as a nontra- ditional family, lesbian mothers with planned families may face the social rejection that is integral to homophobia. ‘One need not necessarily be the target of stigma to be the recipient. Goffman (1963) described courtesy stigma as the stig- ‘matization of others associated with the target, and noted that the intensity of the stigma diminishes the further removed one is from the target. Support for courtesy stigma (Goffman, 1963) or asso- ciative stigma (Mehta & Farina, 1988) has been demonstrated in a study that found children of lesbian mothers experienced some stigma, but less than the lesbian mothers themselves (King & Black, 1999), By five years of age, 18% of the children followed in the National Lesbian Family Studies had experienced some form of homophobic stigma by teachers or peers (Gartrel etal. 1996, 1999, 2000), Self-disclosure is made more complicated by issues of stigma and discrimination in a homophobic society (Anderson & Mavis, 1996; Fassinger, 1991; Waldner & Magruder, 1999). Ina lesbian sample described as having low internalized homophobia, respon- dents reported higher levels of internalized homophobia specific to their public identification as lesbian (Mildner, 2001). One of the ‘most salient stressors for lesbian mothers is the concer that their children may be affected by homophobia and heterosexism (Gartell et a, 2000; Hare, 1994; McCandlish, 1987). Findings from previous studies that investigated how these concems affect levels of disclosure of sexual identity are mixed. Some research suggests that lesbian mothers exercise caution in their disclosure ‘when related to their children, with only 38% disclosing to teach ers, $25 t0 their children’s fiends parents, and 48% to their child's doctors (Steeno, 1998). Other research found that lesbian mothers became more open about their lesbian identity after the birth of their children (Gartell et al., 1996, 1999). OF interest, although many lesbian mothers expressed concerns about potential problems related to stigmatization and heterosexism (Hare, 1994; Lambert, 2002; Tasker & Golombok, 1997), few reported being involved in incidents related to their Sexual orientation (Lambert, 2002). Because these fears and concerns do not seem to be based ‘on actual incidents experienced, it may be that the internalized homophobia heightens concerns for lesbian mothers ‘One of the buffers against internalized homophobia emerges as ‘2 woman moves through the stages of lesbian identity formation and develops social supports in the gay and lesbian community (Cass, 1979; Sophie, 1986). Contact with lesbian peers becomes {important during the middle stages of homosexual identity forma- tion because these social supports offer a new reference group with ‘whom to compare (Cass, 1979; Sophie, 1986). Social support from lesbian peers and acculturation into the lesbian community vai dates lesbian identity, normalizes lesbianism as an acceptable lifestyle (Cass, 1979; Cox & Gallois, 1996; McCarn & Fassinger, 1996; Sophie, 1986), and provides a positive reference group and a testing ground for disclosing sexual identity (Cass, 1979: Cox & Gallois, 1996; MeCarn & Fassinger, 1996; Sophie, 1987; Troiden, 1989), Social Support Social suppor, defined as the exchange of information or con- crete resources at an interpersonal level (Sarason, Levin, Bashman, & Sarason, 1983), from other lesbians has been found to contributeLESBIAN MOTHERS WITH PLANNED FAMILIES 167 significantly tothe prediction of internalized homophobia (Earle, 2000; Melamed, 1993; Nicolson & Long, 1990; Romano, 1990; Ross & Rosser, 1996; Shidlo, 1994; Szymanski, 2002; Walsh, 1995). Research investigating homosexual identity formation (Cass, 1979; Sophie, 1987) found that afftiation with a supportive peer group could counterbalance some of the effects of internal- ized homephobia (Earle, 2000; McGregor & Carver, 2001; Shidlo, 1994; Szymanski, 2002; Wagner, Serafini, Rabkin, Remien, & Williams, 1994). Previous research (Wagner ct al, 1994) found an inverse correlation between integration into the gay community and internalized homophobia (r = 0.54, p < 001) in a gay male sample. In their research with a lesbian sample, Szymanski and ‘Chung (2001) found significant inverse correlations between in- temalized homophobia and passing as heterosexual (r = 0.66), social suppor overall (r = —0.28), lesbian social support (r 0.36), and satisfaction with social support (F = 0.25). Social support isa key resource in allaying some of the stressors associated with the transition to parenthood (Carter & McGoldrick, 1996). Although complicated by issues of homophobia, stigma, ‘and diserimination, research suggests that lesbian mothers make life stage transitions in a similar fashion to heterosexual parents, and share issues related to adjustment, competence, and quality of familial support (MeNeill, Rienzi, & Kposowa, 1998). Like het- €erosexval mothers who often enjoy increased family support after the binh of a child (Martin, 1993; McNeill et al., 1998; Slater, 1995), lesbian mothers reesive an increase in support from their families-of-origin after the birth or adoption of their child (Curry, 2000; Gartell et al, 1996, 2000; Patterson, Hurt, & Mason, 1998;). Contact with their parents increased for 55% of the lesbian, mothers ater the birt of their child (Gartell et al, 1999) Family support for lesbian mothers, however, may be condi- tional and specific to the biological offspring ofa lesbian mother ‘and not necessarily forthcoming for coparents (Fulcher, Chan, Rabohy, & Patterson, 2002; Hetherington et al., 1999; Patterson et al, 19981). Grandparents of biological children had significantly more coatact with grandchildren when compared with the nonbio- logical children of a coparent (Paterson etal, 1998), suggesting that “grandparents may put less effort into a relationship with grandchildren ‘who are nt biologically related to them (Hetherington eta, 1999) In addition, the parents of lesbian mothers may experience their own internalized homophobia in thie role as grandparents. The National Lesbian Family Study:2 found that only 29% of grandparens were out” to other family members and friends about their grandchild’s nontraditional family stricture (Gartell et al, 1999). Although this Increased to 63% by the time their grandchildren were five years of age. only 14% acknowledged their daughter's parmer as coparent (Garell eta, 2000), Current Study The advent of motherhood may affect the perception of the availability of social support for lesbians. When one considers the stress associated with living in a homophobic society, as well as that precipitated by the transition to parenthood, the impact that internalized homophobia may have on access to social support is a critical issue. As lesbian mothers shift their priorities to issues specific 10 family and child rearing, they risk losing the support of other lesbians, the peer group that may have been their primary source of validation, This study investigated three interrelated hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: Lesbian mothers experience higher degree of intemalized homophobia than lesbians without children. Hypothesis 2: Lesbian mothers perceive less social support from gay and lesbian friends, and mote support from theit families-of-origin when compared to lesbians without chil dren ‘Hypothesis 3: Lesbian mothers perceive more suppor from their families-of-origin when compared to lesbians without children Method Sample In the current study, participation was restricted to self= identified lesbians living in the northeastern United States. This ‘geographical restriction was made in an effort to hold constant the ‘impact of regional attitudes and laws, Research participants were solicited through lesbian mothers groups, advertisements in lesbian newsletters, and flyer distribution at gay and lesbian community centers, Using a nonprobability snowball sampling procedure, survey packets including a cover letter, consent form, the Nungesser Homosexual Attitudes Index (NHAD, the Social Support Ques- tionnaire (SSQ), and a demographic questionnaire were distributed to 180 potential participants who had responded tothe solicitation either by e-mail or telephone. A total of 107 participants returned their completed survey packet fora return rate of $9%. This return rate is considered to be good, especially for an invisible population such as lesbian mothers (Rubin & Babbie, 1997). The participants solfselected into three groups: Group 1, mothers (N = 47); Group 2, nonmothers (W = 42); and Group 3, mothers with children from previous heterosexual relationships (N = 18). Because the initial hypotheses did not investigate the population of lesbian mothers with children from previous heterosexual relationships, these par- ticipants were identified and excluded from data analysis, Measurement Instruments HAT (Nungesser, 1983) uses a five-point Likert rating scale to ‘measure three dimensions of internalized homophobia: Scale A measures attitudes about one’s own sexual orientation; Scale B ‘measures perceptions about societal or “others” views of homo- sexuality, and Scale C measures the degree of comfort with “dis-