Kids of lesbians have fewer behavioral problems, study suggests by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Kids of lesbians have fewer behavioral problems, study suggests

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 8, 2010 16:03
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3422
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, June 7, 2010 9:45 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Hah! Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, Conservatives who are against gay couples having children!

Quote:
A nearly 25-year study concluded that children raised in lesbian households were psychologically well-adjusted and had fewer behavioral problems than their peers.

The study, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, followed 78 lesbian couples who conceived through sperm donations and assessed their children's well-being through a series of questionnaires and interviews.

Funding for the research came from several lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocacy groups, such as the Gill Foundation and the Lesbian Health Fund from the Gay Lesbian Medical Association.

Dr. Nanette Gartrell, the author of the study, wrote that the "funding sources played no role in the design or conduct of the study."

"My personal investment is in doing reputable research," said Gartrell. "This is a straightforward statistical analysis. It will stand and it has withstood very rigorous peer review by the people who make the decision whether or not to publish it."

Gay parenting remains a controversial issue, with debates about topics including the children's psychological adjustment, their parents' sexual orientation and adoption restrictions.

Wendy Wright, president of the Concerned Women for America, a group that supports biblical values, questioned the legitimacy of the findings from a study funded by gay advocacy groups.

"That proves the prejudice and bias of the study," she said. "This study was clearly designed to come out with one outcome -- to attempt to sway people that children are not detrimentally affected in a homosexual household."

Gartrell started the study in 1986. She recruited subjects through announcements in bookstores, lesbian events and newspapers throughout metro Boston, Massachusetts; San Francisco, California, and Washington.

The mothers were interviewed during pregnancy or the insemination process, and additionally when the children were 2, 5, 10 and 17 years old. Those children are now 18 to 23 years old.

They were interviewed four times as they matured and also completed an online questionnaire at age 17, focusing on their psychological adjustment, peer and family relationships and academic progress.

To assess their well-being, Gartrell used the Child Behavior Checklist, a commonly used standard to measure children's behavioral and social problems, such as anxiety, depression, aggressive behavior and social competence.

The answers were coded into a computer and then analyzed. This data was compared with data from children of nonlesbian families.

The results surprised Gartrell.

"I would have anticipated the kids would be doing as well as the normative sample," she said. "I didn't expect better."

Children from lesbian families rated higher in social, academic and total competence. They also showed lower rates in social, rule-breaking, aggressive problem behavior.

The involvement of mothers may be a contributing factor, in addition to the fact that the pregnancies were planned, Gartrell said.

Yeah, okay, the study may be biased; I wish someone would find one that isn't, 'cuz I think this study is more on the money than some would admit.

The children "didn't arrive by accident," she said. "The mothers were older... they were waiting for an opportunity to have children and age brings maturity and better parenting."

This also could have occurred because "growing up in households with less power assertion and more parental involvement has been shown to be associated with healthier psychological adjustment," Gartrell wrote in the study.

You have to be a little suspicious of any study that says children being raised by same-sex couples do better or have superior outcomes to children raised with a mother and father," she said. "It just defies common sense and reality."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/07/lesbian.children.adjustment/index
.html?hpt=Sbin

I don't find it all that questionable, nor that a hetero couple's children being more psychologically healthy. The lack of power assertion...which exists in almost all heterosexual families, whether they realize it or not...would be a good influence on a child, as would nurturing by two nurturing, involved people. That would indicate women, to me, as many father figures are decidedly NOT nurturing.

Hippie Operative Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

To our President: “Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar. Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.... oh, go fuck yourself, Mr. President” ...Raptor

To Anthony, unquestionably the most civil person on this forum: “Go fuck yourself. On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. ...Raptor

To Frem: “You miserable piece of shit.” ...Raptor

To Niki: “My guess is it won't just be your ugly face you dislike.....Well, it's true......if you had a soul.” ...Raptor

...Remember, remember, the ugliest member...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 9:53 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Are you married?

Just wondering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 10:10 AM

WHOZIT

I agree, Barry's wife is a lezbo.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 10:20 AM

MINCINGBEAST

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Are you married?

Just wondering.

Clearly, you were not raised by lesbians, but rather wolves.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 10:41 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Wendy Wright, president of the Concerned Women for America, a group that supports biblical values, questioned the legitimacy of the findings from a study funded by gay advocacy groups.

XD

Oh, that's bad. Well, of course they'd find in favour, and of course a biblical values group would take issue with that.

Neutrality is dead and dying. Everything is political now. Watch the Biblical group come out with a study that says flagellation is the proper punishment for children who do not honour their mother and father.

As for the study itself, ...? I guess. 25 years is a decent time, and they have a decent sample, (you can always have more). That should get rid of the wiggle room.

I guess I'm trying to figure out if this fits in with common sense. My desire for equal gender views wants to believe parents of both genders can raise children without behaviour problems. At the same time, perhaps there's an issue with authoritarian father figures that gay and lesbian couples can get around?

And if that's true, then there's something very unfortunate in how we're raising and sculpting the mindsets of young males, and the society and family revert-to-type depiction of the father figure. But I'm not prepared to say I believe that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 10:44 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Gays can't have kids

Everyone knows that.

It's a scientific fact.

** ANYONE ** who thinks the Fed Gov't has done " all it possibly can " in response the Gulf Coast oil disaster, or who thinks Obama isn't lying to us all - I have no use for you. You deserve all the animosity and any vulgar "tone" directed your way. ( Anthony , that includes you, buddy. Sorry )

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 1:29 PM

TRAVELER

Bias would show up in the questions the children were asked. If the work is published, then it faced scrutiny. And scrutiny by people who are not associated with they gay lifestyle.

I would also consider society has some influence. At some point friends and classmates are going to question these children about their parents. How these women helped their children through this period probably made them face very mature issues at an earlier stage then most children their age. This may account for some of their maturity. If this study were done in the sixties or started today, I suspect the results would be different. Putting Bible groups aside, society has evolved and gays are more accepted then a few decades ago. Hopefully this trend will continue and this may contribute positive changes in any further studies. I would not be surprised to find children of straight parents showing better social developement then their parents. To get a real feel for what is happening these studies need to continue through future generations to see what, if any, changes may occur.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 1:37 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Gays can't have kids

Everyone knows that.

It's a scientific fact.

Melissa Etheridge begs to differ. Gay people have kids all the time.

Ted Haggard would say you're wrong, too. In 1978, Haggard married Gayle Alcorn. The couple have five children: Christy (1981), Marcus (1983) (founder and former pastor of Boulder Street Church, Colorado Springs), Jonathan (1987), Alex (1990), and Elliott (1993).

As usual, your grasp of "facts" is tenuous at best.

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 1:44 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Yeah, okay, the study may be biased; I wish someone would find one that isn't, 'cuz I think this study is more on the money than some would admit.

I think it's probably likely to be suffering from a biased sample.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 2:41 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Traveler, yes, it mentioned stigma the kids got in school, etc.; I only posted part of the article to keep it as brief as possible. You can read the rest at the site if interested.

I still think there's a good chance kids raised by two lesbians might have a better chance of being "balanced" if you will than kids born to two hetero parents. After all, heteros haven't done so well thus far...and given the divorce rate, men leaving, etc., I think it's a viable option.

Wulf, that was very stupid, or only said to be a

Obviously gay men AND women have married and had children before they realized they were gay.

I assume the snark about me being married is meant to infer I'm lesbian. I'm not; I'm bisexual and have been married for over 35 years.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 3:56 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Melissa Etheridge begs to differ. Gay people have kids all the time.

Ted Haggard would say you're wrong, too. In 1978, Haggard married Gayle Alcorn. The couple have five children: Christy (1981), Marcus (1983) (founder and former pastor of Boulder Street Church, Colorado Springs), Jonathan (1987), Alex (1990), and Elliott (1993).

As usual, your grasp of "facts" is tenuous at best.

Mike

Man, you're easy.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 5:20 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Gay mafiya: Eugenocidal maniac wants to kill millions of black babies!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=43572

February 19, 2010: Oprah, Gayle To Adopt Baby
http://wendyista.blogspot.com/2010/02/report-oprah-gayle-to-adopt-baby
.html

OPRAH & GAYLE IN UGLY FEUD: "I hate you!"
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/oprah_gayle_feud/celebrity/68745

Rosie Comments On Oprah Gay Rumors: "When they did that road trip, that's as gay as it gets"
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/entertainment/celebrity/Rosie_Opens_Up_On_Re
lationship_With_Kelli__Comments_On_Oprah_Gay_Rumors-66240517.html

Oprah & Gay Rumors -- Pictures Tell Story
http://www.tmz.com/2006/07/18/oprah-and-gay-rumors-pictures-tell-story/

Gayle King: I'm Not Gay!
http://perezhilton.com/2009-11-13-gayle-king-im-not-gay

Oprah Won't Come Out of the Closet!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155090

Cops: Lesbian parents gang raped girl in Trenton
http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2010/04/23/news/doc4bd0b8ef9e84f297
039684.txt

Lesbian teacher rapist off hook – no jail time
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=34415

Lesbian attempts "rape" with her brother's semen
http://www.jillstanek.com/glbt/lesbian-attempt.html

Illinois Review: Lesbian Gangs Raping Girls
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/07/lesbian-gangs
-r.html

‘Vagina Monologues’ condoned lesbian predatory rape
http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Vagina_Monologues_Rape_Scene_Fox_1
2FEB02.htm

She Stole My Voice: A Documentary About Lesbian Rape (30% of lesbians were gayraped)
http://www.rmdglobal.net/she-stole-my-voice/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 6:59 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I dunno, this strikes me as so bloody obvious why bother with a study.

A same-sex couple is obviously going to be more tolerant as a rule, and more questioning of conventional social values in favor of demonstrable morality, that which does least harm generally winning tha argument every time.

Therefore those values will spill over on to their children making them less intolerant and more likely to question their own biases and those of others simply because they will run into that bias against their parents quite early, and almost immediately deconstructing it initially out of simple parent-child-bond loyalty, and then over time finding it laughable how untrue most of the statements affiliated with that bias are.

This then leads them to question other biases and find them almost as ridiculous, and them becoming more tolerant in a direct reaction, thus reducing much of the misbehavior related to the intolerant, rigid minded thinking that a lot of children in our current "educational" environment wind up suffering from.

I mean, how is this not bloody obvious ?

-Frem

PS. Changed the title back, stop being a dick, John, I'm not in the mood, and you'll wind up regretting it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 8:00 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Lesbian Lib founded by CIA to overthrow USA for the Jew World Odor
http://www.rense.com/general21/hw.htm
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310075.shtml

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2010 8:02 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

My gut reaction is that I've known several lesbian couples, and I thought they were much better grounded than hetero couples. First of all, THIS society is sick. It's saturated with violence, power, religion, sex, vengeance, fear, and greed which is mixed up in a very noxious stew that it only a small step up (IMHO) from Muslim societies. Anyone who feels at home here is already a little twisted. And while I can't speak of gay (male) couples, the lesbians that I knew were naturally more equal. I also read somewhere (need to find the study) that lesbian relationships tend to last longer than hetero- not surprising since the level of disconnect between the sexes in the USA is amazing.

---------------------------

But there are flaws in the study. One bias in the study is that the lesbian couples have been self-selected. Donor insemination is a conscious choice; in-vitro fertilization is expensive; and it takes time and commitment for both. So the couples have already been self-selected for income level, commitment to each other, and psychological stability. The BEST control for this study would have hetero couples also undergoing donor insemination and/or in vitro fertilization.

The sample size is very small. It's difficult to derive meaningful statistics.

But as far as the questions being biased:

Quote:
Gartrell used the Child Behavior Checklist, a commonly used standard to measure children's behavioral and social problems, such as anxiety, depression, aggressive behavior and social competence.

The same questions are used in many studies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 2:35 AM

HERO

Quote:

Yeah, okay, the study may be biased; I wish someone would find one that isn't, 'cuz I think this study is more on the money than some would admit.

I've done a study that says studies biased by conservatives are most often entirely correct and those by liberals are most often wrong. My study was biased, but the results speak for themselves since I'm a conservative.

Quote:

You have to be a little suspicious of any study that says children being raised by same-sex couples do better or have superior outcomes to children raised with a mother and father," she said. "It just defies common sense and reality."

Obviously she does not watch TV. All the gay and lesbian couples on TV raise great kids.

I note for the record that I support gay and lesbian adoption because the measure of a parent is an individual test, not a group dynamic. I've seen great and terrible parents in every possible configuration. Besides, if lesbians could not adopt or have kids with turkey basters there would never be any hot lesbian moms and thats not the America I want to live in.

In all seriousness, I think hot lesbian moms are great moms.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I find those statements amazing. I said I found your remarks 'amazing'" Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 4:28 AM

MOOSE1942

Sorry guys the study can't be fair and balanced. Just follow the money.

Quote:
Funding for the research came from several lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocacy groups, such as the Gill Foundation and the Lesbian Health Fund from the Gay Lesbian Medical Association.

Can kids turn out fine from a home with homosexual parents? Sure, but... the lack of a father figure does intangible things to kids.

I work with 12-14 year old boys. Most of which have a mother and father. Some are raised by just a mother. The ones without a father tend to have more problems than the ones with. Also the boys who have a father who is passive also tend to have behavioral problems, vs a strong father figure.

I don't work with any boys with two mothers so I can't comment on that but there is a reason the family unit was designed the way it is.

When the family unit breaks down and you have an absent mother or father, you are going to have problems.

One boy in particular is being raised by his grandparents because his father is absent and his mother is unable to care for him due to her own issues. It's a sad situation, and the boy has quite a few behavioral issues.

Come read my stories, http://alonekingofone.wordpress.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 6:03 AM

BYTEMITE

What kinds of behavioural problems? Without saying too much, because I imagine your intention is to somehow protect the identity of the kids.

But like a rough cross-section, maybe, as opposed to specific stories?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 6:40 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
the same time, perhaps there's an issue with authoritarian father figures that gay and lesbian couples can get around?

I've certainly encountered that issue.

I wonder what a similar study on gay male couples might indicate? Would it be double the father figure? Half the father figure? Hmmm...

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
going to be more tolerant as a rule, and more questioning of conventional social values in favor of demonstrable morality, that which does least harm generally winning tha argument every time.

Marry me?

Quote:
Therefore those values will spill over on to their children making them less intolerant and more likely to question their own biases and those of others simply because they will run into that bias against their parents quite early, and almost immediately deconstructing it initially out of simple parent-child-bond loyalty, and then over time finding it laughable how untrue most of the statements affiliated with that bias are.

This then leads them to question other biases and find them almost as ridiculous, and them becoming more tolerant in a direct reaction, thus reducing much of the misbehavior related to the intolerant, rigid minded thinking that a lot of children in our current "educational" environment wind up suffering from.

I mean, how is this not bloody obvious ?

How indeed.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Donor insemination is a conscious choice; in-vitro fertilization is expensive; and it takes time and commitment for both. So the couples have already been self-selected for income level, commitment to each other, and psychological stability. The BEST control for this study would have hetero couples also undergoing donor insemination and/or in vitro fertilization.

That is a very good point. The conscious and devoted choice to have a child says something about the parents. Not that it's always necessary to good parenting, but I definitely think it makes a difference when a couple is ready and not just flung into it. Actually, my aunt had in vitro, and they are doting parents.

Quote:
Originally posted by MOOSE1942:
there is a reason the family unit was designed the way it is.

Yeah, it's called 'biological necessity.' Getting outdated now.
I actually think it very likely that there was a time, back in the history of humanity, when fathers did not really stick around with one 'family unit.' (Do all of them do that even now? Think about it.) At best, they might have stuck with a tribe. At worst, they wandered far and wide to scatter their seeds, leaving all the women they impregnated to raise the kids together. It could've happened. Easily.
I've also read so many studies on the likely importance of a nurturing mother figure to the development of the immune system, the nervous system, et al, that I can believe that being surrounded by such nurturing would be beneficial.
I would be interested in seeing more studies on this, wider ranging and on-going.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 6:47 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I agree with Signy's comments on selection bias. You are selecting the best possible sampling for child rearing. And comparing it to... what?

However, I have never felt that the children of homosexuals were likely to suffer in any way. I just don't think the study proved anything.

--Anthony

"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor

"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 7:01 AM

BYTEMITE

Historical human grouping and behaviour really is difficult to determine, since any clues we might try to get from modern males are influenced by their culture.

The best evidence would be whether male skeletons are found with female skeletons. If they're not, we have wandering males.

I think generally the fossil record indicates something tribal, with males and females living together at least within a tribe, with no indication how permanent those arrangements are.

This is also consistent with bonobo groupings, our closest relatives. Chimps have male/female tribes with male hunter groups and a dominant male. Gorillas may allow other males around, but tend to have a harem system. Baboons segregate strictly into male and female groups.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 7:52 AM

MOOSE1942

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:
Originally posted by MOOSE1942:
there is a reason the family unit was designed the way it is.

Yeah, it's called 'biological necessity.' Getting outdated now.

How is 'biological necessity' as you put it becoming outdated? A very TINY slice of the worlds population can become pregnant without doing it the old fashioned way. Why? $$$.

There's a reason we have males and females and its MORE than just biological. I argue that it goes into so much more.

There are people out there that somehow think all humans are the same regardless of their gender. Sorry but that is a complete fallacy. There are so many differences between the genders and not just physical but mental, and emotional as well.

God, Darwin, or the spaghetti monster put all of the higher life forms into male and female forms for a reason. Why would life evolve into separate genders if there wasn't an advantage and important reason for it?

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
I actually think it very likely that there was a time, back in the history of humanity, when fathers did not really stick around with one 'family unit.' (Do all of them do that even now? Think about it.) At best, they might have stuck with a tribe. At worst, they wandered far and wide to scatter their seeds, leaving all the women they impregnated to raise the kids together. It could've happened. Easily.

Do all men stick around... no. That's IMHO one of the biggest problems facing our society today. Too many children, are growing up without a father. People who say a father isn't needed have an agenda. I wouldn't be the man I am today without my father. The boys I work with who don't have a dad would be better if they had a good father figure. Taking mom or dad out of kids life will cause them life long problems. Can many of them get past it? Yes. But I bet if you ask kids who didn't have a father growing up if they would have rather have a good one I'd bet 99% of them would have wanted a dad.

Quote:

I've also read so many studies on the likely importance of a nurturing mother figure to the development of the immune system, the nervous system, et al, that I can believe that being surrounded by such nurturing would be beneficial.

I agree with you 100% here. Kids NEED their mother so much. It's sad when I hear about mothers going back to work when their baby is only a few months old. Daycare workers, and nannies can be great but they can not replace the mother.

Anyway this is an interesting discussion, but you can't tell me this study doesn't have some serious flaws.

Oh and sorry I've probably said too much about the boys I work with.

It's not my place to share their personal problems.

Come read my stories, http://alonekingofone.wordpress.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 7:55 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I didn't notice who funded the study; that said, I too would have to entertain a certain amount of skepticism. You can make a study "prove" anything you want to, if you start out with a bias.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 8:06 AM

MOOSE1942

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I didn't notice who funded the study; that said, I too would have to entertain a certain amount of skepticism. You can make a study "prove" anything you want to, if you start out with a bias.

You have won the internet!

Objectivity is dead. Too many studies have been done by people with too much to gain from the outcome of the number crunching. I am not a statistician, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night... I took a couple of statistics classes in college. There are so many places where you can tweak the numbers to make them support your theory.

Come read my stories, http://alonekingofone.wordpress.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 8:28 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Oh and sorry I've probably said too much about the boys I work with. It's not my place to share their personal problems.

That's okay, understood.

Quote:
There's a reason we have males and females and its MORE than just biological. I argue that it goes into so much more.

There are people out there that somehow think all humans are the same regardless of their gender. Sorry but that is a complete fallacy. There are so many differences between the genders and not just physical but mental, and emotional as well.

Ehm... Not really a fallacy, unless you can explain what logical rule it violates. It might be incorrect or correct, or not match up to observation, which we might debate, but it's not logically invalid to say. A statement can be logically valid and untrue, at the same time.

<_< And I'm actually one who would say this. I do think a lot of the purported "differences" between genders are culturally influenced and part of upbringing. There are a few exceptions. Of course there's the obvious sexual dimorphism such as size and the respective gender features. These are genetically coded for. Chemical differences due to hormones also play a role in how certain emotional and psychological disorders manifest in the genders.

Other than that, it's hard to argue that genes and the X and Y chromosomes account for differences in behaviour and skill sets. Really, this seems cultural.

Behaviour and skill sets seem to be mostly influenced by experience and training. Certain cultures like to encourage boys to work on certain skills and act a certain way, girls to work on other skills and act another way, and then they think it's some inherent derived trait when the adult versions specialize in those skills. Surprise surprise, it's probably not.

However, I don't contest that having a good role model of the same gender is important. I think the current idea of what a role model should be like is... Lacking.

A male doesn't have to be authoritarian, violent, or emotionally closed off/stoic/emotionally stunted. And in fact, that probably hurts how effective they are at parenting. Not good.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 8:38 AM

MOOSE1942

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
A male doesn't have to be authoritarian, violent, or emotionally closed off/stoic/emotionally stunted. And in fact, that probably hurts how effective they are at parenting. Not good.

+1

Fathers should be strong, but have empathy with his kids.

One of the problems I see is a lot of kids aren't getting enough structure and discipline. Too many parents are either doing laissez faire or buddy parenting.

Both approaches don't work. Parents should parent not be their kids best friend.

Oh BTW I've got 3 kids. So I think I'm qualified to say the above.

Come read my stories, http://alonekingofone.wordpress.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 10:30 AM

LITTLEBIRD

I don't know about the study, but speaking from personal experience, my daughter and her partner have raised a wonderful daughter together. She just turned 18 and is a happy, well-balanced, wise beyond her years and an extremely compassionate young woman.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 10:45 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I agree wholeheartedly with Byte about the cultural aspect of it. There's certainly a biological component, but it's not the overriding factor in my opinion. In fact, most of what you wrote parallels my own beliefs.

I do agree, Moose, that structure is lacking. That I would also put down to culture...we can go back to the evolution of American culture and easily see where it comes from, but that's beyond the point. The point is that structure has become a problem in our culture when it comes to kids...seems to be either too much or too little, or, as you said, inconsistent.

Nonetheless, I think part of what Western culture (and Mideastern and others, too) has done to the male of the species hasn't necessarily been healthy for their children. That's just my opinion from 61-or-so years of observation. Both sexes have their individual problems, obviously.

I have to respectfully disagree with your statement that having three kids qualifies you to make definitive statements about child rearing. I'm assuming it was half in jest and referred to not being a buddy to your kids, but one would have to judge by your children when they have matured and perhaps had children of their own to tell whether they were healthy psychologically, and it definitely wouldn't be you to do the judging. We can never see our children objectively.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 1:52 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

It's a difficult thing to study children's outcomes, because of the mix of factors that may affect their wellbeing, including things like their economic status, the education level of their parents, the psychological health of their parents etc etc.

Any study of outcomes would have to sample in a broad mix of people to get a reasonably accurate outcome, so I don't know if that study has done this or not.

Sometimes even being a part of a study can affect the outcomes. Nevertheless it gives some indications that kids can be raised by same sex couples without adverse affect. Kind of a no brainer in my book.

My only issue is with anonymous sperm donors and the affect of not knowing your biological heritage for the kids later in life, which goes for het couples as well as same sex couples. I think people need to know who they come from if possible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 2:05 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
I actually think it very likely that there was a time, back in the history of humanity, when fathers did not really stick around with one 'family unit.' (Do all of them do that even now? Think about it.) At best, they might have stuck with a tribe. At worst, they wandered far and wide to scatter their seeds, leaving all the women they impregnated to raise the kids together. It could've happened. Easily.

I think evolutionarily speaking females who were looking after very small infants would have had little chance of survival without the father sticking around in a protective/hunting role, at least for the first few years.
Then there is that kind of gluing that happens if you do stick around, the bond with the child that cements the unit if you like.

Quote:
I've also read so many studies on the likely importance of a nurturing mother figure to the development of the immune system, the nervous system, et al, that I can believe that being surrounded by such nurturing would be beneficial.
I would be interested in seeing more studies on this, wider ranging and on-going.

There are lots and lots of studies on this. Look up 'attachment theory' and you will be able to access them.

The benefit to the child, apart from the psysiological benefits of breast feeding,are from having a secure attachment to a primary carer, who can be mum, dad, or marvin the martian - so long as it is a secure one.

It's sad that dad's roles have become sidelined in recent history as kind of an optional extra because I think having strong male as well as female role models is essential to all children. That's not to say that hets do this well as a rule, or that it is not possible for gay couples to arrange this. I'd assess that it would be difficult for a boy to grow up in a lesbain separist community and vice versa as there would be no way he could learn how to be a man, but I'd say those scenarios are pretty rare.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 2:36 PM

CITIZEN

There's nothing natural about the traditional nuclear family. Humans evolved to live in larger tribal groups like the other great apes.

I still think the that this study has a huge amount of selection bias inherent though.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 4:03 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Moose, there's times when no parent is preferable to a bad one - I am right damned glad my "father" had the sense to get out of dodge before things got uglier than they did, and if the choice is between an incompetent or abusive parent and none at all, generally they're better off without.

You have a bias too, and it shows - but while you concentrated your argument on the influence of fathers on sons, lemme add this bit for you.

A good father figure is a very important thing for girls too, it's their first experience with someone who is both male, and a figure of authority, who's affections and approval have nothing to do with sex.

Not sayin it's an absolute necessity, but a lot of girls, especially those with other problems, wind up with approval-affection "issues" wrapped around a lack of understanding that approval-affection, and sex are not directly related, and so on and so forth - it's an opportunity to teach by example that should not be missed if it is available, although I have my own issues with blind fanatic crusder types in part cause they've made fathers *afraid* to express affection or approval lest they be accused of something, which teaches exactly the opposite lesson, neh ?

I don't think it's ever a matter of sexual orientation, religion, or whatever other factor so much as whether a parent is involved, and trying to BE an effective parent, which isn't the easiest thing in the world for most folk, in between the struggle to keep the bills paid, dragging their own child-parent baggage and unresolved issues, and the constant bombardment of mixed messages most children recieve from a society and educational system which seems to have gone off the deep end.

So in the end it doesn't really matter, one parent, two, three - gay, straight, athetist, believer, not a whole lot, it really matters how much they CARE, how much they TRY.

Which is, of course, due to the small sample size, lack of a control group, and failure to account for other factors, why this study doesn't really "prove" a whole lot of anything - especially since the main factor they were trying to research is so bloody obvious I don't see the point of why they bothered.

The real key is empathy, the ability to understand other humans, and something in my discussion previous with Anthony strikes me at this moment as part of the reason I can get through to seriously messed up kids so effectively.

Some few folk, but maybe fewer than I thought, can flip this little switch in their heads and examine something from a male or female viewpoint - not well, mind, but well enough for understanding to happen, I dunno if it's inborn, a response to the need, or some combination, but I do know I can do it(1), and my ex can do it too, having worked for so long in the male-dominated corporate ranks of the auto-industry, which lead to our relationship at the time being an exact match for the classic 1950s with the gender roles reversed.
(you do NOT want that girl trying to cook!)

But I realized the switch has three positions, cause I can kick it right into the mindset of a child too - which given how painful and repressed a lot of those memories are, not just due to abuse but often the harshness of experience-teaching lessons, most folks can't, they block it out, wall it off, cause it's too painful and so they suppress that information, which I think is a disservice to their parenting ability, cause being able to put things in a fashion the child can understand is well worth the trouble, and seeing it from both ends can actually lessen the trauma of those memories in an adult.

Oh, and PhoenixRose - don't tempt me so!
Especially not with Wendy and her damn "Hikaru Genji Plan" gettin on my nerves, however begrudgingly she's accepted spoiled-bratty-daughter as a consolation prize, Yuriko with her apparently serious insistence imma damn Kitsunetsuki and apparently having some kinda thing for that, and at least one "local" girl who's advances are so mechanical she oughta have potting soil on her pants cuffs cause it's just that obvious she's somebodys plant.
Oh yes, and Amberlee conspiring with my ex and apparently thinking of flanking the rest of em by foisting off brownies made with real butter and cocoa this morning...

Alice of course, is *not* helping, what with suggesting a "who wants to be a villainess" contest to whittle down the numbers - and if I ever did kidnap and carry off Byte, she'd overthrow me and subvert my evil empire into tree dwelling, cookie baking elves or something... grrrr

-Frem
(1) The ex says that's why most folk runnin into me online take me for female at first, cause when in information-gather mode, I have that mental "switch" set to XX rather than XY.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE