Peggy Drexler, an assistant professor of psychology in psychiatry at Cornell University’s Weill Medical College, sought to test the prevailing wisdom that boys need fathers as male role models in order to develop into emotionally healthy, mature men. This is an increasingly important question in an era when more two-mom couples are having children and fighting for the right to raise them, and when single moms are also more common than they were in our parents’ generation. Drexler concludes that boys raised solely by moms showed no significant differences in moral development than those raised in “traditional” families, and in fact, boys raised by lesbian moms tended to be more cooperative, less verbally aggressive, and in less conflict with siblings and peers. All good things. Unfortunately, the book has some serious gaps and methodological flaws.
Over the course of several years, Drexler studied and spoke with 32 lesbian couples and their sons, along with 30 single moms by choice and 30 single moms by circumstance (divorce or death of a spouse). Her findings, as presented here, are anecdotal, although she has apparently backed them up with a statistical analysis in her dissertation, on which the book is based. The study also focused on White, middle-class families, a serious limitation. She says that lesbians in “socioeconomically subordinate” groups are less visible and less likely to be out—but surely she could have found 30 of them. Let’s hope this is a gap she or someone else will fill in time.
Even if we accept her conclusions as applying only to White, middle class families, 30 in each category is barely enough for statistical significance, and I am leery of the broad generalizations she draws. More worrisome is her assertion that, as a married straight woman, “My own experience would serve as a one-woman control group representing married mothers.” That’s just not good science.
Another major flaw is that Drexler spends a lot of time assuring us that boys raised by moms won’t become “sissies” or be anything less than “all-boy.” She says, for example, “Current research suggests that many of these fears about boys not being sufficiently masculine when raised without a father in the home are groundless”; “I found that boys from less conventional families were ‘all-boy’; being raised in a predominantly female environment appeared to have no effect on their sense of themselves as male”; and “A good parent, whether mother or father, will enable a boy to develop to his full potential as a young man, as long as his individuality, his manliness [emphasis mine], his courage, and his developing conscience are respectfully and fully supported.” Again, this is good news for boys who are straight, gender-conforming, and being raised by moms—but also implies there’s something still not quite right about boys who are less “manly” or fall more towards the female side of the gender-identity spectrum.
Drexler does affirm that sexual orientation is innate and these boys will find their own way, whether gay or straight. She also found that the moms in her study made it clear to their sons that they could choose from whichever masculine and feminine characteristics appealed to them, and were more open in this regard than moms in traditional households. My sense is that if confronted directly about these issues, Drexler would agree there’s nothing wrong with being a “feminine” boy—but she’s made such an effort to prove that lesbians and single moms can raise “masculine” boys that she comes across as saying they always will. (For counterbalance, read Abigail Garner’s incisive post on assuming heterosexuality among children of LGBTQ parents.) Drexler doesn’t seem blatantly homophobic, but she’s clearly writing this book to convince those who might be, and shies away from issues of sexuality and gender identity that might scare people.
This avoidance is obvious elsewhere. When describing how lesbian moms teach and guide their sons, Drexler doesn’t dive as deeply as she should into the finer points of lesbian identity. She says strong mothers “can model what we traditionally consider ‘masculine’ attributes,” but never brings up butch-femme identity. Not that one has to be butch to be strong—but because butch women tend to manifest more “masculine attributes,” it seems relevant to where sons of lesbians may learn their “masculinity” (at least for those boys with more masculine identities).
Drexler is so eager to make her point about all-mom families being good that she makes overly general, and often negative, statements about traditional families, and risks alienating straight allies. She states “In our society, often we idealize and elevate the role of father in a boy’s life without giving credence to the fact that actual fathers can be destructive and a boy may be better off without his father.” And again, “Sons from two-parent, heterosexual families will often unconsciously hold on to these hated qualities [aspects of their fathers that cause them conflict] and unknowingly act them out with their own children.” In some cases, yes—but this is quite a generalization.
Overall, I find myself agreeing with many of Drexler’s conclusions: that two-mom and single-mom families can raise healthy, happy sons who are freer to chose their own paths and more empathetic towards others. I am intrigued by her finding that boys in all-mom households tend to have even more male role models than boys in traditional households, because the moms “actively recruit” men to take part in their boys’ lives. These moms are also more likely to create extended support networks of both genders, the proverbial “village” to help raise their children. I wish her conclusions were not so sweeping, however, or were backed with harder evidence, and that she’d taken the time to pose some additional questions: Do two-dad families raising daughters have similar concerns and solutions? What about lesbian, bi, and single moms from other social and ethnic groups? Some statistics would have been useful, too; perhaps not as many as in her academic dissertation, but enough to make her conclusions seem more than merely anecdotal.
Read this book for the questions it raises about what makes a family, how boys find their ways, and how the moms Drexler studied found their own solutions to the problems of parenting. Be aware of its limitations, though. I would also be remiss if I didn’t mention Abigail Garner’s caution in Families Like Mine about “oversampling” children of LGBTQ parents. We must listen directly to the unfiltered voices of those raised by LGBTQ parents, not just make assumptions about them from limited studies that only interview their parents. Those who do academic research in this area must proceed with open minds, listening ears, a balanced perspective, and a wide net. Raising Boys Without Men corrects some misconceptions about boys raised in all-mom families, but paints only part of a much wider picture.
