Hey everybody!

Amy has a study that says that children, even little ones, don't need mothers!

She knows it's true, because there was a study! They studied it!

(Finally, right?)

So that's over.

Hey everyone, Crid's back!

Chain-yanking and all!

It's the only reason I posted this. It was Crid-bait! Stick around a while, Cridster. I promise to throw you rare lamb from time to time. Often, even.

This has been known for over 50 years. I expect it to be ignored because it is just as inconvenient now as it was back then.

Kay Hymowitz on the Moynihan report:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_black_family.html

"Judith Stacey and Timothy Bednarz find that children raised by gay parents do just as well as those in straight families.

What seems to matter is whether the family is an intact one.

via @Mark_J_Perry"

By definition there are no *intact* gay families with children, because every single one of the children raised by gay parents, has at least one bio parent, who is either totally out of the picture, or not living in the home.

Although I do know a family who formed a threesome. Dad, mom, and mom's lesbian lover, so I guess that family would qualify as intact.

By that reasoning no family with adopted children is ever intact either

By that reasoning no family with adopted children is ever intact either

Posted by: lujlp at February 26, 2016 7:20

If the children are adopted at birth or as small children, and are raised in a two parent home with the same two parents, I would consider that as an intact family.

Sadly with a lot of lesbians, they dupe some Hetro guy into being a dad, then divorce his ass and or sue for child support so they can live with a series of lesbian lovers.

"That's why the poverty rate among two-parent black families is only 7 percent."

Someone seems pretty confident that they have found a cause-effect here. But it can go two ways, methinks.

Black families (or white families for that matter) that are under severe economic stress are far likelier to break up than those that are above the poverty line. This study just as easily says that if you aren't poor, you have a far better shot at staying married.

There is clearly a solid correlation here, but which direction the causal link runs is not clear.

Magic 8-ball says 'probably both ways'.

I was going to say the same thing luj said, but your point is taken... there's a difference between full-out adoption, and tricking some guy into being the father and then cutting him out of the picture. I think it's actually better if they use an anonymous sperm donor, at least from that perspective.

Regarding the Stacey and Bednarz study, I did look at it bit, a while back when we first discussed it. My conjecture is that with gay parents, one parent tends to take on the opposite-sex role. So maybe it isn't perfect, but it's a big improvement over a single-parent family. Plus, it still has the advantage that any two-parent household has -- either there are two breadwinners (more economic resources), or there is a breadwinner and a nurturing parent (more time resources).

Amy has a study that says that children, even little ones, don't need mothers!

She knows it's true, because there was a study! They studied it!

Posted by: Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at February 25, 2016 10:43 PM

I wonder if the important dynamic is two parents rather than the sexual orientation of the parents.

When a child is raised by one parent, that parent's pathologies become the family dynamic. But with two parents, there is a relief valve as well as a second set of eyes to keep watch and provide relief.

More than two, however, creates a "somebody else's problem field" in which the people in the village are not emotionally attached to the child and can shirk the less appealing chores of parenthood or ignore warning signs when they're inconvenient.

So, Hillary's village may be good for babysitting and providing role models, but not very good for emotional attachment and actual parenting.

Just spitballin' here. Maybe someone should do a study.

Regarding the Stacey and Bednarz study.... ~ Posted by: Cousin Dave at February 26, 2016 9:11 AM

Wasn't there also an issue with that study in that since it used adopted children, it was, by default, limited to middle-class and higher families; that since poor people have a hard time adopting, there weren't many poor families in the study?

It's obvious - and not PC at all - that kids raised by both parents have better outcomes.

I would want to see a reference to a study claiming the same benefit for a gay couple. Frankly, I doubt it, because one role model is missing.

Consider: why is it helpful for kids to have both parents around. One reason is certainly seeing a successful relationship and partnership at work. That will apply to stable gay couples as much as to stable hetero couples.

However, what is missing is a direct male role model and a direct female role model. Both are important for both boys and girls. One to emulate, the other to learn how to interact with the opposite sex.

It seems likely that a solid study would show that having two gay parents is better than having a single parent, but worse than having a heterosexual couple as parents.

It seems likely that a solid study would show that having two gay parents is better than having a single parent, but worse than having a heterosexual couple as parents. ~ Posted by: a_random_guy at February 26, 2016 10:09 AM

I suspect you're right about that.

We're all very clever! And that makes us cute! She meant to do that, don't you see?! Methinks about solid correlations in role modeling, because this isn't about the love of the people who gave you life... It's all about the dynamic!

God, we're brilliant. The Earth shall never again flower with insight as she does this morning, under the radiant grace of our courage!

Wasn't there also an issue with that study in that since it used adopted children, it was, by default, limited to middle-class and higher families; that since poor people have a hard time adopting, there weren't many poor families in the study?

Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at February 26, 2016 9:21 AM
____________________________________

I have no idea about that.

However, even though it's rare (I'd guess) for single people to adopt or even be allowed to adopt in the first place, I'd love to know just how well THEIR kids turn out, since the parent would very likely be middle-class.

However, even though it's rare (I'd guess) for single people to adopt or even be allowed to adopt in the first place.... ~ Posted by: lenona at February 26, 2016 10:57 AM

It's also rare that poor people are allowed to adopt. So, any study using adopted children is already biased toward the child starting out in the middle-class and growing up in a relatively safe neighborhood with decent schools - even adopted children of gay couples.

If not adjusted to compensate for those socio-economic differences, the Stacey and Bednarz study is biased by default. Perhaps not a strong bias, but still a bias. To say that, in all situations, having gay adopted parents is equivalent to having straight biological parents is to draw a conclusion based on incomplete evidence.

That's not to say that having two gay adopted parents is bad, but one cannot simply say that parent sexual orientation doesn't matter or that it's equivalent to growing up in a normal (hetero-normative? sheesh) family.

I suspect random is right, that it's somewhere along the spectrum, above poor single parents, but below heterosexual couple parents as an optimal growing up situation.

==============================

As for the parent-child dynamic, most people forget how powerless children really are. If a parent has significant pathologies (alcoholism, mental illness, neediness, etc.), the children don't have the freedom, or will, to escape the situation, even for a few minutes of peace at a nearby park. They're forced to deal with it in situ as best they can, without the tools a well-adjusted grown-up usually develops.

Television shows us sarcastic tweeners dealing handily with parental pathologies and abysmal behavior. So, we fool ourselves into thinking children can deal. In reality, the tools that television tweener is using would not have been developed by the child who grows up raised by a parent with significant pathologies. They're left alone and tool-less to make their way in a world that has no patience for those who cannot deal.

So, when one parent's pathologies become the dominant dynamic in the parent-child relationship, that leaves the child defenseless. Having that second parent at least gives the child a relief valve and a refuge.

I suspect that's why the two-parent situation is best for children and why the heterosexual two-parent upbringing wins out, even if one parent is hopeless.

There are also recent studies indicating that, on a number of metrics, the children of gay couples do not do as well as those of straight couples. It is not surprising, nor is it "homophobic" to point that out. Just as noting that single motherhood is less beneficial for children (especially boys) is not "femaphobic" or misogynistic.

Why is it so hard to accept that man + woman is the gold standard when it comes to parenting? Just because other models might not be as good doesn't mean they're crap. Silver and bronze are still worthy of honor, but not at the expense of acknowledging and honoring the superiority of gold.

The takeaway? Kids reared in a house with their biological father are the richest and safest, and having your own father help raise you is the greatest "privilege."

Why are feminists so agin' it?

Why are feminists so agin' it?

Posted by: Jay R at February 26, 2016 12:23 PM

Because they have been telling themselves for years that they don't need men. Any evidence to the contrary must be suppressed or shouted down.

It doesn't fit the narrative.

...The narrative of the parent-child dynamic in a biological takeaway of recent studies in a causal link?

Amy has a study.

And you have hooting! Indignation!

Good thing these others, so clever, brilliant even, have done the heavy lifting for you!

Refresh my memory: where did Amy say two gay parents was superior?

> where did Amy say two gay
> parents was superior?

Beats me, Radster! You'll have to use teh Google to look it up. Here... Append this string to your search terms:

site:http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/

...Like that.




Hmm? Me?

I'm the guy who's deduced --though it was no great challenge-- that she thinks children need neither the love of the mother nor the father, and that these attachments need not be encouraged if one can claim the admiration of idiot hipsters by giving first consideration to the egotistical fulfillment of irresponsible adults. She wants to mix-n'-match for playful fun. Spiritual Garanimals.

You could ask him if you want, but I'd think it's a safe wager that Prager would regard this Shanghai of his principles clumsy and demented.

"Two-parent privilege" is nothing more nor less than the parents being responsible about the act of breeding.

And it is available to all races equally easily. (Though it would help if the government stopped forcing the rest of us, including men who never agreed to be fathers, to subsidize irresponsiblity by breeders. Child support needs to not exist without marriage except in cases of rape.)

"I'm the guy who's deduced --though it was no great challenge-- that she thinks children need neither the love of the mother nor the father, and that these attachments need not be encouraged if one can claim the admiration of idiot hipsters by giving first consideration to the egotistical fulfillment of irresponsible adults. She wants to mix-n'-match for playful fun."

Nonsense. Your indignation is self-generated.

You're still hooting, pleased with the volume you can generate, pretending that a binary solution has been presented where every homo "family" is greater than or equal to every hetero family. You've also assigned your own values, in that these people who raise children in homosexual surroundings are the "irresponsible adults".

Nope.

I have no idea why you think that an absolute has been presented. But that's on you.

> pretending that a binary solution
> has been presented

A loving mother with a loving father versus...?

> You've also assigned your own values

What does that even mean?

Youse guys is just so eager to use totally contemporary and sciencey words, as in the examples above... And now, binary! Assigned values!

I'm jus' smarter than you, is all.

(For example, I always thought "on you" was an especially déclassé turn of phrase. And I was always right!)

Listen, when you turn your own language into your enemy, it will know you're in a hurry, and make quick work of you.

In other news, there are a lot of people having children who shouldn't.

Too unstable to have kids? Too broke? Why let these details stand in the way of your entitlement to all the kids you want?

Conan, loved your comment.

I can't believe they left out the importance of ritual sacrifice in maintaining the family unit.

Sure, it's expensive to have a brick-and-mortar Moloch pit in the back yard, but come on now. Everyone has access to a barbecue grill of SOME sort.

"brick-and-mortar Moloch pit"

Wow. Just wow. A fiberglass lined pit is easier to clean and lasts longer. Sure it costs a little bit more up front. But going brick'n'mortar is penny wise dollar foolish.

As in the present instance, those rituals are of smug self-congratulation. They happen so often (not just on blogs!) that we take no special note of them.

It's rillyweerd to me that people don't see this. The injuries done to our culture by slavery just a few dozen years ago are everywhere apparent; We know well the wordy certainty with which seemingly normal men and women would shamelessly crack a whip... 'It's for their own good,' etc.

But those who'd squander the souls of children --often their own-- for a little social swagger will today describe themselves immune to such trends in human wretchedness.

Please crid, you dont give a shit about kids.

You cant be bthered to parse your argument, and when questioned directly in the past your arguments make clear you'd rather see children exiled to a fucking warehouse rather than be adopted by loving parents

All privilege. Responsibilities are so yesterday.

My question is, simply, is it really so bad or risky for your psyche to grow up without a father (or a mother) if, say, you're living in a safe suburb?

Insufficient information to answer that question Lenona. Depending on the suburb sometimes yes and sometimes no. I probably need a more complete definition of 'bad or risky' too. Are you only speaking in economic terms? i.e. future earnings.

To put it another way, how many suburban kids with one parent grow up to have more criminal problems, distinctly worse grades than those kids with two parents, or, say, clinical depression?

However, I do remember, years ago, someone saying, in effect, that rich people can afford to break the old moral rules of society (such as having sex, doing drugs or being a single parent) but poor people can't afford to break those rules.

The point about the rich being able to break 'the rules' is true to a point. If they aren't selling their labor like most people then they don't need to meet those rules (dress appropriately, be nice, show up on time, ...). The middle class for the most part has to follow the same rules as anyone else who sells their labor. The very poor have another set of rules determined by welfare law.

So it depends on what the rules effect and what you want to do.

As for the suburban neighborhood question, still not enough information. Despite what people claim money (and especially parental money) is not determinative. In some places and locations it can be used as an indicator of values or habits. But in the current US there are multiple cultures with the same socioeconomic situation. So you get widely varying answers based on location. i.e. the data is really really noisy.

In aggregate you do see a trend of single parent children having higher behavior problems (including criminal behavior) and lower grades. But there are several groups that buck that trend.

Single parents with an involved father show little difference from two parent households. (I believe ~98% of single parents are female. So using father for the external parent is appropriate.)

In families with fairly permissive values (trophies for everyone, high self esteem, and such) male children tend to earn as much as parental income requires. So the richer the parents the less the child makes. To the point where adult children in their 30s and 40s are still living with their parents and have no job. Interestingly female children in these homes follow a different path and typically become self sufficient. Here one or two parents makes no difference. It only effects total income which inversely affect male child income. So having a single parent actually leads to better outcomes. Lower education helps too. (Go figure)

There is also the issue of multiple divorce and remarriage. This is about as bad as single parenthood for children.

I know I rambled a bit but like I said the data is messy. Personally I think a two parent family with both genders is the ideal. But there are enough other factors I doubt you can measure the loss due to same sex parents. So in my opinion any harm done by having same sex parents is small enough to be ignored.