Man, I love it when science refutes bigotry...

[SallyMander]

Hopefully these results are a "duh" to everyone here, but this kind of data is SO important in the fight for equality!

DOES A PARENT'S GENDER IMPACT A CHILD'S SUCCESS?

Although two parents are often more effective than one, the parents' genders make little difference in terms of the child's development.

THE GIST:

* Children usually benefit from having two parents instead of one.
* The gender of each parent, however, does not have a significant impact on a child's success.
* This finding strikes at the heart of one of the major arguments of gay marriage and adoption opponents.

In a finding that confronts deeply rooted beliefs about parenting, a new study concludes that parents' genders have little impact on children -- suggesting that same-sex couples are as effective at raising children as heterosexual couples.

On average, children succeed most when raised by two parents rather than one. The parents' genders, however, make little difference in terms of a child's development, according to a landmark study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family.

The analysis of 81 parenting studies by sociologists Judith Stacey of New York University and Tim Biblarz of the University of Southern California challenges the widely held notion that children need both a mother and a father in their household in order to thrive.

...

Recent research on lesbian-parented households seems to support the study's gender-neutral thesis. Overall, studies indicate that children raised with lesbian co-parents do just as well as children raised by heterosexual married couples. The children of lesbian co-parents may even have fewer behavioral problems and higher self-esteem.

...

Stacey expects that as more research emerges on childhood outcomes of gay-parented families, gay men may turn out as the best parents because of the deep commitment required for them to legally father children.

http://news.discovery.com/human/parents-gender-children.html

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Good!!!

It is a shame that there was ever any question...

[theoldman]

2. Fathers are best at raising boys and mothers are best at raising girls.

This does not mean the roles cannot be switched. The important thing is to set an example.

[Stuckinthebush]

4. My girls would disagree

Their mother sucks at raising them so it falls on me. I love doing both the societally allocated female activities with them (shopping, hair, makeup, manicures, etc.) and the societally allocated male activities (sports, practical jokes, etc.) with them. They would tell you that I'm better at both than their mother.

But I'm one person and this is anecdotal evidence.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Throwing salt over your shoulder keeps demons away.

Not that pepper or tumeric wouldn't work in an emergency. The important thing is to keep away demons.

[shadowknows69]

10. Anything good I am is because of my mother.

Anytime I've become my father people got hurt because of me. Freud would have loved me.

[AspenRose]

11. Wow, somebody better tell President Obama.

[seabeyond]

12. greatest bonding to 4-6 yr old girl is father. greatest bonding for 4-6 yr old boys is mother

it switches when they are hitting puberty

at the young age the gender is learning how value their own sexual worth. at puberty, they are learning how to be their gender

[Lex]

14. I agree with the conclusion

in the article, not some disproven notion about which gender is "best" at parenting.

[Arkansas Granny]

17. I have to disagree with you there. A loving parent who is involved with

their children are the best ones to raise them. Gender has little, if anything to do with it.

I will agree with you, however, on setting an example for children to follow.

[The Doctor.]

22. Meh.

If that's an 'on the average' sort of statement, it still only has marginal merit.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. It's a broad generalization...

... inviting exceptions to the rule.

In general, children need role models of their gender, and fathers bring different social development benefits than do mothers.

[Political Heretic]

49. That is the stupidest thing I have ever read in my entire 33 year life.

Of course, I will bet every dollar I have that you're about twice my age and WHITE and MALE.

[SallyMander]

50. Clearly you haven't gotten to post 27 yet

And the subthread therein. ;)

[Political Heretic]

64. LOL I just got there.

:rofl:

[boppers]

147. Oh god. I just wasted a few thousands neurons on that.

Thanks for the heads up.

[Ignis]

89. Why?

:shrug:

[distantearlywarning]

102. Bah.

My relationship with my dad growing up was much better than my relationship with my mom.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with gender, and everything to do with a personality match.

[Xenotime]

You are wrong..

A mother can raise a boy just as good as anyone else.

[JerseygirlCT]

228. I don't agree at all.

Involved parents are best. And as the mother of two boys, I think I've had and have a very strong role in their upbringing.

[Lorien]

3. K & R nt

[eridani]

6. It's just common sense that lesbians and gays are better parents

But then, so are heterosexual adoptive parents. It's a statistical thing--if there is some physical barrier to becoming a parent, those who aren't all that interested just let it go at that. The extra effort involved in overcoming such barriers is going to select for better parents. Agree that gay men are probably better than lesbians--the barrier is much higher for them.

[Marr]

8. That's a good point. n/t

[TransitJohn]

9. Not necessarily

The extra effort involved in overcoming such barriers is going to select for better parents.

It will select for people more desperate to be parents, not necessarily people who are better parents.

[eridani]

26. Doesn't the desperation imply an extra willingness to work at it? n/t

[TransitJohn]

28. Maybe, maybe not, but it sure doesn't prove being any better at it, which is what was stated. n/t

edit: change maybe to maybe/maybe not in title

[seabeyond]

13. there is a bet of an effort pushing a baby out, just saying. nt

[Lex]

15. that's a different thing entirely from the ability to parent, just saying nt

[seabeyond]

16. simply making the decision to adopt is nothing about parenting either.

parenting is time and the long haul. not measured before even done.

[Lex]

18. what does that have to do with "pushing a baby out" ?

:shrug:

[seabeyond]

19. what does it have to do with adopting?

i am agreeing with you

talking effort is not indicative of parenting.

[eridani]

24. Adoption represents really big financial and other barriers

I gave up the idea of adoption because my husband is unalterably opposed to social workers prying into his life.

[seabeyond]

35. in theory. but reality of parenting, i dont agree.

in adopting one has extra ingredients that can get in the way. good parenting to help that along and heal the child or allow the child to thrive. in inability in parenting can cause trauma and drama

in theory, adopting means the parent put in more thought and consideration, and investment is committment, but it is still not parenting.

[eridani]

25. If there are serious barriers to becoming pregnant in the first place--

--that is irrelevant. If you got pregnant with no extra effort (like paying for sperm, etc) then you had no physical barrier to parenthood.

[seabeyond]

36. and in those nine months is evidence of parenting with how one goes thru the pregnancy

it isnt a contest. i just dont agree with the basis of the argument.

[JerseygirlCT]

229. You're obviously missing straight parents who very much

wanted their kids.

Broad generalizations on either side aren't helpful.

Gender or orientation or fertility or lack thereof don't make good or bad parents. It's a process and it's about the level of commitment.

[brooklynite]

7. Pay no attention...

Just some more of that radical scientism.....

[Fleshdancer]

20. Makes sense to me....

Who doesn't benefit from growing up in an environment where several adults love you, support you, and genuinely care about your well being? Growing up sucks, and when you need someone there to listen to you and comfort you, you're not going to care about their gender or their sexual orientation because that's not the point.

[The Doctor.]

21. They don't listen.

It won't matter how many studies you shove down their throats, the will simply believe what they want to. I have enough direct experience with these people to testify to their stunning capacity for ignorance.

[BR_Parkway]

23. There's a basic flaw in this that doesn't seem to be addressed -

gay or lesbian parents don't have children "accidentally" - so there's already the presumption that they want to be parents and should do a better job of it when compared to a hetero couple who discover they're having a baby that they didn't want/plan for/can't afford/possibly resent.

[Selatius]

114. From what I can tell, maybe half of hetero couples accidentally become parents.

Of that, it does make one wonder exactly how many of them became "unwilling" parents.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. I disagree.

Children require role models of their gender.

My niece and her partner were very good parents to their daughter. I don't think they'd have done as well raising a son.

[SallyMander]

29. So you disagree with this meta-analysis of 81 studies

based on your sample size of 1?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. He also thinks that autism is caused by vaccines.

Just so you know.

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. Really? That should be easy to prove.

With your large brain size and all.

Put up or shut up.

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. *crickets*

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. Um, OK.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=81578&mesg_id=81578

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=387&topic_id=931&mesg_id=931

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=68914&mesg_id=68914

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6630527&mesg_id=6632099

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=70436&mesg_id=70474

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3094786#3094821

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3280398&mesg_id=3280398

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. If even one of those links said the thing you attribute, you'd have avoided looking like an idiot.

A falsehood wrapped in an ad-hominem wrapped in a non-sequitur. A trifecta.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. Actually, I feel I've rather proven my point.

You disagree obviously, but, well, given the above... I really don' think that matters.

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. Actually your feelings are immaterial. You've proven mine. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. Maybe applying Jenny McCarthy logic, sure.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. You're over your non-sequitur quota for the day. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. You're just randomly stringing big words together at this point.

falsehood, ad-hominem, non-sequitur, trifecta, non-sequitor, admiral, wolverine, lightningbolt.

[Political Heretic]

63. Sigh.. they're not big.

Dammit... bugs me so much.

The fact that these are considered "big words" in our society scares the shit out of me.

But apart from that, I'm with you and not white-racism equivalent guy. :)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. He's using them inappropriately, pseudointellectually in other words.

I could have said pseudointellectually, but "big words" works just fine.

[Political Heretic]

75. Haha fair enough.

[lumberjack_jeff]

74. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

I, at least, posted something relevant to the OP.

You? So far not.

Posting gibberish precludes you from complaining about the in-kind responses.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. The egg.

Chickens evolved from some other bird which was not a chicken, and thus the egg came first.

Unless you're a Creationist in addition to being an anti-vaccer.

"I, at least, posted something relevant to the OP."

Yeah, but we're in disagreement that it's relevant.

"Posting gibberish precludes you from complaining about the in-kind responses."

Ah, but it's not gibberish. Other people understand it. And I think you do to, you just don't want to admit it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

80. Dogs "understand" whistles.

Did you have something to contribute about the topic of parenting?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

82. I have something to contribute...

to the sub-discussion of science vs. pseudoscience.

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. Then perhaps a new thread is in order.

In which you can solicit my opinion instead of making it up for the benefit of "other people".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

88. Continuing a discussion from another thread is unnecessary.

And I think it's rather obvious your opinion is of no interest.

[lumberjack_jeff]

100. "Of no interest"? No doubt. When you see fit to fabricate it, why bother asking?

Works of fiction pay well, but not here.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

101. I've fabricated nothing.

You, on the other hand, are shit out of luck.

[lumberjack_jeff]

103. Dang. I've caught you on a bad day. That short attention span acting up too?

"he also thinks vaccines cause autism"

...Doesn't ring a bell?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

105. Yeah, I remember that.

And I supported it with numerous links wherein you think that vaccines cause autism.

[lumberjack_jeff]

106. Oh, then the problem is reading comprehension. Sylvan can help.

I don't think that and I've never said that. But I suspect you knew that even before you blew the dog whistle.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

107. Yes, the problem can be traced back to issues with literacy.

Scientific literacy, specifically.

But I ain't the one with the problem.

[LanternWaste]

62. You boys want a measuring stick?

You boys want a measuring stick? To get it over with one a for all, I mean...

[uppityperson]

111. +1!!!

[lukasahero]

202. I love you, man.

LW for the win! :hug:

[Political Heretic]

51. Heh, ouch.

[lumberjack_jeff]

78. Yup. Poor BH / HFPS. That tourettes must hurt him something awful. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

85. I got it from childhood exposure to cough drops.

It's an evil Big Ricola conspiracy.

[SallyMander]

90. ...

:spray:

[SallyMander]

41. Ah.

*backs slowly out of the room*

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. Yes. In exactly the way that your sample size of one gives you confirmation bias.

Dads Get Higher Ratings

Fathers today get higher grades than mothers for their performance, especially from women. Overall, 47% of Americans say fathers of children under the age of 18 are now doing a worse job as parents than fathers did 20 or 30 years ago; this compares with 56% who say mothers are doing a worse job. About one-in-five (21%) say today's fathers are doing a better job compared with fathers a generation ago; far fewer (9%) say that today's mothers are doing a better job than their predecessors 20 or 30 years ago.

I long ago abandoned hope for any agreement from man-haters central.

http://www.glennsacks.com/raising_boys_without.htm

It’s one thing to be respectful of gays and gay parents. It’s quite another to engineer a deceptive study and use it to assert that lesbian families are a better environment in which to raise boys than heterosexual families. That’s what former Stanford University gender scholar Peggy F. Drexler, Ph.D. does in her new book Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men. Unfortunately the mainstream media is helping her promote her claims.

In the book’s opening pages Drexler’s message is one of tolerance for various family forms, as she notes that lesbian and single mother families “can” effectively raise boys. But Raising Boys soon devolves into outright advocacy of lesbian parenting. In Drexler’s world, lesbian families—protected from fathers and their toxic masculinity--are the best environments in which to raise boys. Married heterosexual mothers try their best, but the positive influence these hapless moms try to impart to their children is overwhelmed by that of the malevolent family patriarch.

According to Drexler, lesbian moms are “more sophisticated about how they teach their sons right from wrong” than heterosexual couples, and there are “real advantages for a boy being raised in this new type of family.” Heterosexual mothers don’t measure up in “moral attitude,” and are less likely than lesbian moms to “create opportunities for their sons to examine moral and values issues.” This in turn slows the “moral development in their sons.”

Furthermore, Drexler asserts that boys raised by lesbians “grow up emotionally stronger,” “have a wider range of interests and friendships,” and “appear more at ease in situations of conflict” than boys from “traditional” (i.e., father-present) households. Fatherless boys “exhibit a high degree of emotional savvy…an intuitive grasp of people and situations.” Best of all, sons of lesbian couples are much more willing to discard traditional masculinity than boys trapped in heterosexual households.

[Lyric]

40. "Man-haters central"?

Ohhhhhh! I get it. You're one of those MRA mental cases--the type who, like modern American Christians, believe that THEY are actually being persecuted and oppressed because they no longer possess utter social primacy to QUITE the same degree as before. Sorry! I almost took you seriously.

[SallyMander]

42. But how can you refute his amazing evidence

of... a survey, and umm... some guy named Glenn Sacks? With apparently no info in his bio on his educational credentials?

:rofl:

Your son is a lucky kid. :hug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. Yes. DU.

Ask for a mens forum and you'll see.

[Political Heretic]

53. Maybe they don't hate "men" - Maybe they just hate you.

Food for thought.

:hi:

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. Maybe.

The fact that I don't hate men appears good enough reason.

[Zoeisright]

126. LOL!

Nice ...

[demmiblue]

95. There is a reason that there is not a men's forum...

it is because DU admins would not like a forum that consists of people like you (I'm guessing).

I have no argument against a men's forum, however, I think the admins realize that there are quite a lot of boys that would really make DU look bad in said forum... as if they don't already.

:shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

109. Yes, there is. Sexism. Men discussing the issues important to them is embarassing and threatening...

... in a way that "Betty Broderick shouldn't have waited so long to kill her ex-husband and his new wife" is not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7543160&mesg_id=7543189

[demmiblue]

115. Lol... too funny! DU admins are sexist!

P.S. They are all male.

Again YOU are one of the reasons why there is not a men's forum.

[lumberjack_jeff]

118. Then *you* propose it.

As if.

[demmiblue]

122. Why would I?

The last thing that a DU men's forum needs is someone like you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

124. Okay. I like it here in GD. n/t

[demmiblue]

127. :smooch: Of course you do. Lol!

Your opinions count for jack shit here. Too bad, so sad!

:rofl:

[lumberjack_jeff]

169. It isn't that the admins are sexist. They are businessmen.

Their business is surfing the prevailing views of the community, of which men's "opinions count for jack shit here" are a good succinct summary.

It's like the Lord of the Flies, but that's okay because I'm not marooned on this island.

[Political Heretic]

196. You're right. The males-are- oppressed-by-a- matriarchical-society views don't count for shit here.

Just like DU isn't going to be making a forum devoted to the discussion of "anti-white racism" and "reverse discrimination," neither will it be making forums devoted to the equivalent in the gender category.

It's called being a liberal discussion board. If you asked Free Republic to create you a men's only forum to express your woes at how persecuted and abused poor men are by this society, I'm sure they would make you one in a heartbeat.

Andrew
(OMG! I'm a man! I'm betraying my own gender by failing to recognize the evil conspiracy by the shadow matriarchy and its secret plots to enslave and disempower men brainwash our children (and eat babies too, I hear they do that!)

[lumberjack_jeff]

203. You're absolutely right. FR is happy to entertain discussions of mens issues.

Misguided, distorted and conducted in a perverse immoral context, but discussions nonetheless.

I assume you're a democrat, you know half of voters are men, how can you not see the problem?

Also, you do know that DU has rules, right? Why do you think that the rules wouldn't be applied in a mens forum? Given the conversations that have occurred about that topic, there is VERY good reason to believe that the rules would be applied in a hyper-vigilant if not persecutorial manner.

Your attitude isn't doing our cause (the democratic one, remember?) any favors.

[Political Heretic]

204. Even more than half the voters are white too. Should DU have a "whites" forum?

And you've still not answered my questions I've asked you multiple times now:

Describe for me what would be included in "proper" development of a boy? Please. Explain the specific guidance that boys need, but girls do not need, that must be passed on from other men.

What if you have no sex, but identify as a man - can you be a "proper" parent to a boy? What if you are intersexed? What if you are transgender - can a transgendered male be a proper parent to a boy, teach the boy the special "male" things that he needs to learn from men?

[lumberjack_jeff]

206. No

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7593153&mesg_id=7602573

[Political Heretic]

208. Answered 0 of 4 questions.

:(

[Political Heretic]

210. No? So it should have no whites only forum even though over half Democrats are white?

But it should have a men forum because half Democrats are men?

[lumberjack_jeff]

212. I see no need. If others disagree, they'll have to carry that torch. n/t

[Political Heretic]

235. Well, why wouldn't you see a need?? That makes no sense.

[lumberjack_jeff]

237. Because DU is sexist. If it is racist, it is not obvious to me. n/t

[grace0418]

174. +1

It certainly is a difficult world in which to be male (white and Christian, too). :eyes:

[Political Heretic]

200. This original reply still makes me laugh.

It cuts to the heart of it.

Screw overwhelming scientific consensus. By god my gut tells me I'm right!

:crazy:

[SallyMander]

231. *takes a bow*

Seriously though, scientific literacy: how many problems would it solve in our country???

[Lyric]

39. My partner and I are raising a son.

He's just fine, regardless whether or not you believe that the two of us aren't capable of "doing well" raising a son.

:hi:

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. You present no evidence that his father would not have done better. n/t

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. I can live with that. Judge me by the company I keep... and the company I avoid. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

61. That's why I brought up anti-vaccine woo.

I mean having a lengthy discussion on the topic of science and then finding out that they're an anti-vaccer is like having a lengthy discussion on geography and then finding out you're arguing with a Flat Earther.

[Political Heretic]

59. He shows up in threads like this all the time, he's like the white-racism guys.

Male-sexism! Men of the world UNITE and throw off your oppression by matriarchical society!

Yeah, its that stuff...

Men can raise children well. Women can raise children well. Men and women can raise children well.

What we seem to know from research is that:

- two parents are better than one, when possible

That's about it.

Everything this poster associates with "men" and children needing "male" influence in their lives are gender stereotypes that aren't biologically connected to "men" - but only to the gender role preferences of our culture. Meaning that at any point, men and women can exist outside those stereotypes - which also means that its not what biological sex you are that is important, its the kind of values and attitudes you instill in your children that's important - the best from those stereotypically associated with "maleness" in our culture, and the best of those stereotypically associated with "femaleness" in our culture.

[SallyMander]

66. Nice post PH

The study makes a VERY IMPORTANT point that you touch on too: many people cite studies purporting to show the importance of dads. However, these studies generally compare 2-parent households with single-mom households. So in science, they are violating the "rule of one variable" -- they are varying both the NUMBER of parents, and the GENDERS represented. This analysis was unique because it addressed that weakness in other studies.

They never say that dads aren't important, or can't be fantastic parents -- that is just baggage that the poster upthread brought in himself.

OK, getting off soapbox now. :D

[Political Heretic]

79. Right, no one but this usual suspect is seeing some percieved threat to dads.

Dads rock. So do moms. So do two dads or two moms.

[lumberjack_jeff]

81. "Perceived"?

Re read the OP that triggered this mini debacle. Absent a prevailing view that unlike boys, girls need female role models, does the reaction make any sense?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

94. Alright, I've reread the OP.

And "perceived" is even more appropriate than I originally thought.

[Political Heretic]

98. No, your reaction makes no sense.

Actually that's not true - it makes complete sense, knowing who you are.

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. Sooo.... you don't think that children need role models of their gender?

Kinda discredits about 90% of feminist ideology, doesn't it?

[Political Heretic]

77. Maybe, maybe not.

That's not really my problem.

"feminist ideology" is too broad. There is not one uniform "feminism" - that much I do know. I can't speak for a percentage, but I know at least some "feminists" who suggest that what's needed in our lives is the dimension of the "feminine" as culture defines it - traits, actions, feelings, ways of being, defined by culture as "female" are valuable and needed and not subordinate to traits, actions, feelings and ways of being defined by culture as "male." Who delivers these things, and whatever biological sex they happen to be, is seen as secondary.

As I said, I can't speak percentages, and don't care. I'm not on the hook to defends something as broad and multi-faceted as "feminism"

[wickerwoman]

87. Role-models, sure. Parents, no.

And the need for children to have same-sex role-models has nothing to do with feminism.

[JoeyT]

158. You seem to be completely confusing role models and parents.

Kids often have role models that aren't their parents.
Role models don't have to be present 24 hours a day unless you think kids don't develop object permanence until they're 25.
So your "feminist ideology" is a straw man. Just like every other time anyone ever used the phrase.

[lumberjack_jeff]

163. In the absence of a father, where will boys get that?

And yes, I am conflating the two. When I say "role model" I mean someone who is empowered and responsible to shape the child's development. Teachers and parents.

Transient "exposure" to the occasional man isn't adequate. The belief that it is has been developed to ameliorate the guilt of parental malpractice and to justify marginalizing fatherhood.

[uppityperson]

178. Friends, family, teachers, any male that spends time regularly with a child

[JanMichael]

233. Hmm. I have 3, yes count them 3, "fathers".

Which should be tripley great!

However while living periodically/rotating with 2 (adopted and step) of the 3 in a sense I was raised in the absence of a "father" (in the ongoing consistent awesome idiotic sense). Because of the weird parental situation in my life there was no true male "empowered and truly responsible" for my development. Period. Not from the age of zero (0). (Edit - I never had a long term consistent "male mentor" either. I also went to 5 elementary schools, three junior highs and two high schools so I never even really had a strong child/neighbor consistent influence either)

Was that not "adequate"?

I don't know:

* I'm happily married to a woman (I'm a guy)
* I have a very good job and profession - sadly better than most which makes me sick sometimes when I see how little others have
* Yeh I'm a crazy Leftist but people aren't turned off by that
* I'm in shape, believe in fitness, practice martial arts, have guns, etcetera

Ohhhhh....I'm a vegetarian! That must be the deficiency from not having a consistent dedicated male father figure in my life!

Oh and I really had major separation from the females in my life too.

Go figure?

[lumberjack_jeff]

238. The "man up" paradigm.

It goes like this:
"I know that each generation of boys is more likely to fail in school than the previous. I know that boys are 50% less likely to go to college than girls. I know that boys are many times more likely to be commit crimes than girls. I know that boys are much more likely to be the victims of violent crime than girls. I know that boys are more likely to commit suicide.

... but I turned out fine, therefore there isn't a systemic problem."

You know what selection bias is? You're demonstrating it, because a) the frog in the pan doesn't really remember that the water wasn't quite this hot before, and b) the uneducated, the incarcerated and the dead who were failed by the system aren't in a position to disagree with you.

[LanternWaste]

65. Much like all the evidence you've provided us with...?

Much like all the evidence you've provided us with for your posits...?

[Lyric]

155. If I did, you'd call it anecdotal, declare it valueless, and ignore it.

But sure, here goes. His "father" inherited a small fortune from his grandparents' trust and left his unborn child in order to go live in Australia with his internet girlfriend and waste all of his money on living the SCA lifestyle and indulging his love for RPGs for all eternity. He tells everyone that I was a whore and that LyricKid isn't his; he HAS to because it's the only thing that he CAN say in order to save face. I have no legal recourse because unlike him, I am low-income, and he's out of reach in Australia. I can't even get a child support order against him because he left before paternity could be established. I have tried the local child support enforcement bureau, the State Department, the Hague Convention--I even wrote to Australia's child support enforcement agency to see if they would help me get the DNA test done to prove him a lying sack of shit once and for all. Nobody is willing to help me, and I can't afford to fly to Australia and sue him there. We are very much stuck. Our son lives in poverty while his father spends thousands upon thousands of dollars on expensive costumes, armor, SCA events, faux-medieval furniture for his home, and everything else that pleases his slightest fancy.

Oddly enough, my ex's OWN father did pretty much the same thing--he left his wife and toddler son because her rich parents paid him to leave and never come back, and he accepted. My family was (and is) poor, to be sure, and my father was certainly no saint, but he and my Mom at least never abandoned their own children.

I used to be angry about it, but that was all 10 years ago,and frankly, it's probably for the best that my son doesn't have his biological father as a "role model." I see what kind of example his paternal grandfather set, and I'd rather that that child-abandoning stopped with this generation. You see, you ASSumed that his father isn't around because WE don't want him around. Your bias in favor of men made you blind to the reality that quite often, "fatherless" children are only fatherless because their fathers LEAVE them. I know one or two vindictive women who deliberately keep their kids from their fathers, true. But I know twenty who are raising kids alone because Daddy can't be bothered to grow up and/or admit responsibility.

If a man WANTS to be a father to his kids and the only thing standing in his way is a psycho ex, well more power to him and good luck. However, I don't assume the father to automatically be the victim, as you do. I live in the real world. I know better. I thank my lucky stars every day that Rhythm loves and wants the child that his "father" didn't (and doesn't.) LyricKid has TWO parents--no thanks to his poor, oppressed "father." And I assure you, if there is ever even the slightest chance that some pregnant girl's baby might be a grandchild of mine, I'd kick my son's ass myself to get him to take the DNA test. And if the baby's his--he is NOT abandoning it. That particular twisted little "family tradition" ends as of now.

Now go away, little boy. Indulge your manufactured oppression fantasies elsewhere. You're like a Puritan whining because some Indian tribe is living on your land, while remaining utterly oblivious to the irony of how you GOT that land in the first place.

[lumberjack_jeff]

168. A man who wants to be a father to his kids has more barriers than "a psycho ex".

He also must contend with cultural expectations and stereotypes implicit in this thread. Mainly, that he has to fight for "his parental rights", instead of being helped/encouraged/facilitated in assuming his responsibilities.

I don't think your anecdote is valueless, but unless your intent is to invite commentary on your parenting decisions, I think it's inappropriate. This thread has no shortage of personal attacks and speculating about people's family life. I'm not going to participate in that game.

That said, I find it curious that you recognize the damage that grandpa's absence had on dad, and conclude that to avoid that outcome with your own son "it's probably for the best" that dad is absent.

Parents do their best with the hand they're dealt. I won't pretend that I think your son has been dealt the best possible hand, but that doesn't mean that I assume you're not doing the best you can.

[SallyMander]

170. Glad to see that the BS is still going strong in this thread!

"I don't think your anecdote is valueless, but unless your intent is to invite commentary on your parenting decisions, I think it's inappropriate. This thread has no shortage of personal attacks and speculating about people's family life. I'm not going to participate in that game."

-lumberjack_jeff


"You present no evidence that his father would not have done better. n/t"

-lumberjack_jeff, 17 hours prior

[lumberjack_jeff]

171. Partly conceded.

I invited the personal anecdote. Mea culpa.

My bad. The anecdotes that this thread will produce are pretty predictable.

[unapatriciated]

217. You want evidence?

ok.
My grandson's father is a rapist. I doubt he would do a better job than my daughter and her partner.

What you fail to grasp is we are not saying fathers should not be involved in raising their children.
We are just saying that gender or sexual orientation does not have the adverse effect on raising a child as you would like us to believe.

Poverty and the lack of social programs that might give some families the tools they need is the major problem for our children.

[redwitch]

70. I have lesbian friends raising a son.

An incredible kid, bright, lots of friends, musical, loving, funny, studious. Plus, he's got red hair so he totally rocks. Your niece and her daughter would have done just fine with a son. I do think it helps to have adult role models of all kinds and both sexes. The more great people you are exposed to the better. It takes a village and all that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. I disagree with the prevailing DU view that dads are extraneous.

It attracts the ire of DU's sexists, but that's okay.

Children, but especially boys, need active, involved and serious fathers. Not father figures.

[uppityperson]

110. Were there no other adults in that kid's life? Role models come from all people they come in contact

with. Teachers, friends, parents of their friends, etc etc etc. Raising a child responsibly means having them in contact with good role models that are not JUST the parents.

[lumberjack_jeff]

112. She had many women in her life to help her turn out well.

As a young woman, that was her primary need.

But boys are unlikely to find many male role models in school - and "friends" aren't going to cut it.

[uppityperson]

113. The only adult friends or teachers that are good role models are women?

That sounds rather sexist to me and is just plain wrong.

[lumberjack_jeff]

117. No. That's not what I said.

I said that girls have a greater need for grown women as role models, and few men are in positions to be role models for kids. (custodial parents, teachers or child care providers)

The fact that they are much more likely to be alienated from their dads (than girls from their moms), combined with the fact that fewer than 10% of primary school teachers are men, cause boys to have only TV actors, stepdads or "uncles" as role models.

But the fact that 80% of the jobs lost since 2008 were held by men is changing that.

[uppityperson]

119. "and "friends" aren't going to cut it." Male "friends" aren't going to cut it?

As a single parent, my child had a fair amount of exposure to men and women "friends" (not sure why you put "friends" in quotes, but since it seems important to you I will also). There are a fair amount of male teachers also, as well as sports coaches of both sexes, extracurricular adults of both sexes.

You also wrote "Children require role models of their gender." Is there a problem with stepdads or "uncles" (still not sure why you use quotes for "friends" and "uncles") being role models?

Or are you saying that we women can not have true friends or relatives that are males? That they must be "friends" or "uncles" wink wink nudge nudge? In which case that is still very sexist since we have true friends who are males and yes, our brothers are uncles to our children.

I do not understand the "uncle" bit. You talk about your niece, aren't you an uncle or are you only and "uncle"?

[lumberjack_jeff]

123. "Uncle" as in; "*Uncle* Bill and I are visiting. You kids stay in the living room."

Friends don't cut it because it implies peers. By definition, not role models.

And no, mom's male friends aren't a suitable surrogate.

[uppityperson]

129. Sexism rears its ugly head. Women can have male friends they aren't fucking

Friends doesn't imply peers. I have friends, male and female, of all ages. My child was exposed, so to speak but not implying any sexual behavior, to many of them. They are my FRIENDS. My child was involved with them, they with my child, women acting as female role models, men acting as male role models.

I feel very sorry for those who think that people can not have friends of the opposite sex that they aren't sexually involved with.

[lumberjack_jeff]

130. Sorry for suggesting that women have sex.

I have seen the error of my misogynistic ways. :eyes:

[uppityperson]

131. No, you "suggested" that women's friends and childrens uncles all fuck the woman

Hence friends and uncles in quotes since women can't have friends, can only have "friends" and my brother (and you to your niece) are not uncles but must be "uncles".

Hence the other bs

"mom's male friends aren't a suitable surrogate"
"Friends don't cut it because it implies peers"
"few men are in positions to be role models for kids"
"But boys are unlikely to find many male role models in school - and "friends" aren't going to cut it."

[SallyMander]

133. I wouldn't even bother

Seriously... sometimes it's just not worth it. SMH.

[uppityperson]

135. I'm getting to that point.

"friends" "uncles" pshaw. And this from a person boasting about his niece.

[demmiblue]

138. I wouldn't, either...

creep factor, and all.

[lumberjack_jeff]

136. Feeling a bit foul-mouthed today?

Humans are like that. Friends of the opposite sex are frequently romantic interests, and until some permanence exists in the relationship, are unsuitable as role models for the kids.

As for the rest, your frustration isn't producing any sensible information.

[uppityperson]

137. No, tired of your sexist bs. Friends of the opposite sex, for many of us, are platonic friends

I feel sorry for those of you for whom this is not a possibility. I feel sorry for people like you who can not even perceive this as a possibility, who are unable to make sense of such an idea.

As I said, sexism rears its ugly head.

[uppityperson]

139. Another example of sexim here, thanks for keeping them coming

It is ok to talk about sexual partners euphemistically as "friends" or "uncles", but saying "fuck" means one is foul mouthed. This from someone who brags up his niece, being an uncle yourself.

Wild.

[lumberjack_jeff]

140. LOL

Sorry, just :rofl:

Apoplexy is funny that way.

[uppityperson]

141. No reply except laughing. OK. Tata

[unapatriciated]

219. "And no, mom's male friends aren't a suitable surrogate."

You really do have a warped opinion of single mothers.
Yeah we spend all of our free time behind closed doors with our children's "uncles".
Instead of tending to the needs of our children.

It seems your comments are based on your personal experience which I'm assuming was not a good one.
You know I could be bitter that my children's father couldn't be bothered with them until they reached adulthood.
I'm not because I know that they need a relationship with him, late is better than never.
I could be like you and think all men are assholes because of a bad experience but I don't judge all males by one idiot.
My children had many great male role models none of which had the pleasure of entering my bedroom

[lumberjack_jeff]

220. Mom's male friends, romantic or otherwise, are not a suitable surrogate.

They are impermanent and not empowered to give the kind of guidance, backed up by authority, that a boy needs.

[unapatriciated]

222. Sad that you have few lasting friendships

that doesn't mean the rest of us do not enjoy them.

[lumberjack_jeff]

223. I have plenty of friends.

If I were to drop dead tomorrow, even my best friends wouldn't be able to step into the formative role that I play with my sons, if for no other reason than, unlike a family friend, my role is more than advisory.

[seabeyond]

120. i think the fathers role is as vital as the mothers. i know my sons benefit having dad around

and grandpas and uncles. i always like seeing my sons interact with their male relatives. i also like seeing them interact with the female relatives too. i think that is as important.

one of the niftiest is when kids were in older grades and started getting male teachers. i can see a difference. the boys can see a difference in the teaching.

i think two parent family is important in a child's life

i also think

that a single parent can do as an effective job parenting
gay couple can also do as an effective job parenting

none of gender role model is all of a child's development. regardless of the make up of the family, any could be kick ass, any can be hurtful. it is the job that the individual parent does. even working on less than the optimum, the choices and solution the parents come up with to address the issue can excel the situation to excellence.

[demmiblue]

142. What amazes me is the parent...

that has spent countless hours posting on DU instead of interacting with their children.

[seabeyond]

143. oh my. hm. i guess one would have to know more about what is happening in the house

ages, relationship, connection..... ect. i dont know how anyone could decide anything with so little information as an unquantitive perception of time they figure a parent is spending on the net.

[uppityperson]

148. Duct tape. eom

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

116. What, exactly, is the danger of a boy not having a male role model?

Are they going to end up peeing sitting down?

Are they going to end up effeminate?

Please explain.

[lumberjack_jeff]

121. Here's two.

a) Men fail to learn parenting skills because it's never been required of them. In fact, in this society they're required to be a primary parent almost always because something has failed.
b) Boys grow up to be men who have no idea that parenting is something they're supposed to do to the best of their ability, in fact have no clue what it even means. Why should anyone be surprised that children who had no relationship with their father, grow up to be men who take the parenting casually? Irresponsible? Of course they are. Further, there are no role models in school who can demonstrate that learning is something that is desirable for men. It's part of the reason that 3 girls go to college for every 2 boys.

In short, the same dangers that would exist for girls if women were prevented from being in positions worthy of emulation.

I should think this would be apparent even to you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

128. I think it's apparently ridiculous.

It's like saying boys would grow up to be lousy drivers because they have no idea men are supposed to be competent drivers.

Boys would grow up not knowing how to change lightbulbs, because they never saw men changing lightbulbs only women.

[lumberjack_jeff]

132. What hypocrisy.

No one one here would make your argument for girls. No one here would make your argument for minority kids.

"First black president"? Who cares? Tommy knew all along that he could be president because he'd seen lots of white people do it.

Who needs a female governor? Girls will grow up to aspire to leadership anyway because they have plenty of men as role models.

[Smashcut]

146. Your analogies are bunk

There's no HISTORY in our society of either men or women being denied the role of parent, as there was for black people or women to occupy the highest roles of authority. There's no question in any child's mind that it's *possible* for a boy OR a girl to grow up and raise children such that a demonstration would be necessary. And even if it were, there are plenty of mothers and fathers around to model oneself after.

[lumberjack_jeff]

150. Children don't have the experience or capacity to learn in the abstract.

In the absence of a dad, watching The Cosby Show reruns won't give them the training they need to be a father.

[treestar]

152. What of prior times when medical science was not as good

And many children ended up without a father or a mother or both, and ended up raised by grandparents or aunts and uncles?

It seems like the world should be less screwed up now.

[lumberjack_jeff]

162. Many kids are raised by grandparents today.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a grandfather serving as the male role model that boys need, provided grandpa is empowered with parenting responsibilities, not simply someone to dole out cookies when mom needs a break.

[uppityperson]

161. Why do you keep coming up with parking your kids in front of a tv for role modeling?

Seriously, do you do this with your kids?

Being involved with other people in real life will give them the exposure and training they need to be humane people.

[lumberjack_jeff]

166. Where did you ever get the idea that duct tape is an appropriate parenting technique????

OMG! What kind of parent are you?

And drop the righteous indignation too. The sexist stereotypes on this thread are coming wholly from your keyboard.

[uppityperson]

176. Ah, when you can't answer, you attack. Gotcha.

[lumberjack_jeff]

182. Why would I answer a strawman?

You demand I answer for a fantasy stereotype entirely of your own creation?

Bold, to say the least.

[uppityperson]

186. You are the one who keeps coming up with tv role models and discounting

human ones. Since you are dodging again, that tells us more about you. Thank you for continuing to prove the point.

[lumberjack_jeff]

191. When was the last time you duct-taped your children?

Huh? Answer the question!!!

If you had the tiniest shred of language parsing capacity, you would understand that my whole point is that human role models to guide the development of boys are in short supply. It is you who keeps saying that dads are irrelevant because there's plenty of men, you know, around n' stuff (but not on TV, of course, that's silly) to serve that purpose.

[unapatriciated]

221. I guess my son's are exceptional.

All three are dads and all three parent quite well.

but I guess their skills came from Charles in Charge, I had very little influence.

[lumberjack_jeff]

224. Maybe. I dunno.

This isn't about you or me or your kids or mine.

This is about the forest, not the trees.

[Smashcut]

145. You don't think people are smart enough to transfer the idea of "good parenting"

from one gender to another?

What do any of the concerns you raised have ANYTHING to do with the gender of one's parents? Do you think if boys don't see MEN parenting they'll think they're exempt and not learn anything from good mothers? As the child of a single mom I have to tell you that's an absolute lie.

In fact, I would argue that boys are more likely to learn bad parenting from having a shitty father around than a good mother and no father at all (or vice versa, i.e., good single dad with a daughter, in case you think I'm skewing this against men).

[lumberjack_jeff]

173. "Do you think if boys don't see MEN parenting they'll think they're exempt.."

Yes. I think EXACTLY that because it is demonstrably true.

[Smashcut]

177. Actually, you've YET to demonstrate that.

And it's bullshit.

[Smashcut]

144. Even if that were true (which it isn't)

it doesn't mean that a child raised by two parents of the opposite gender wouldn't be exposed to same-gender role models. A family doesn't exist in a social vacuum.

So your point is totally irrelevant.

[lumberjack_jeff]

149. Question: Is "a mother figure" an adequate surrogate for young girls?

There are lots of women on TV and just kind of, you know, around to provide adequate exposure, don't you think?

[wickerwoman]

156. Yes, of course.

Because the real values anyone needs to learn are *human* values: honesty, responsibility, kindness, open-mindedness, hard work, how to show love and nurture others, how to have respect for yourself, for property and for other people, etc. You can learn those things from either parent.

You can learn how to use tampons, put on make-up, box or use power tools online or in books or from any number of adult figures. But the basic, most valuable part of any person's character comes down to basic gender-neutral values and behaviors. And implying that models of those behaviors are only found in parents with one kind of genitals *is*, I'm sorry, sexist to the core.

[lumberjack_jeff]

165. It is not sexist to recognize that men and women percieve and react to the world differently.

And those perceptions and reactions influence parenting styles.

In general, a person who has never been a boy is at a disadvantage in guiding the development of one.

I, for one, think that "mother figure" is bullshit because girls need an actual mother empowered and responsible for her development. Most of the country would agree with this. However, unlike most of them, I think "father figure" for boys is equally bullshit.

[Political Heretic]

187. Actually, yes it is.

People don't "perceive" the world differently based on their sex anymore than the "perceive" the world differently based on their eye color. People are treated differently based on cultural expectations of their sex, but that comes from without, not within.

Describe for me, by the way - what would be included in "proper" development of a boy? Please. Explain the specific guidance that boys need that must be passed on from other men.

[wickerwoman]

198. That's kind of the definition of sexism.

Can you give an example of the way that all men perceive the world that all women don't?

Who we are is about who we are, not about what we have between our legs or who we want to sleep with. And having been a human being, I am pretty confident in my ability to guide the development of another human being.

So yes, let's also have a list of these essential tidbits of knowledge or character that a man could instill but a woman couldn't.

(How to be a responsible parent is bullshit because mothers can give as good an example of this as fathers can.)

[lumberjack_jeff]

209. Different is not superior

Sexism is when you believe in the inherent superiority of your gender and entitlement to the service of the other.

Like when someone says killing your spouse is justified because your entitled to the spouse's future earnings.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7543160&mesg_id=7543380

See? That's sexism.

[wickerwoman]

216. And you are arguing for the inherent superiority of men as raisers of boys.

And you still haven't answered either of my questions. What *specific* values, skills or behaviors do boys acquire from fathers that they cannot acquire from mothers (+ community and family support)?

What perceptions and beliefs do *all* men hold that no women hold?

Why don't we focus on this thread instead of linking to unrelated ones?

[lumberjack_jeff]

218. Cooks are inherently more likely to be better teachers of cooking.

"Child" isn't one thing. Being a boy is a different experience than being a girl. Men, by virtue of having once been boys, have an experiential advantage in helping boys become men.

But it's not just a one-way street. Every boy knows that he's going to become a man one day, he will search for someone to model, and it can't be mom.

"No"? "never"? "every"? "all"? Strawmen. You'll have to take it up with someone who actually thinks what you're trying to attribute to me.

[wickerwoman]

226. And being a "boy" or a "girl" or a "man" or a "woman" isn't one thing.

"Every" "all" and "no" are inherent assumptions behind statements like "Men and women percieve and react to the world differently." (Your post 165). That statement assumes that all men perceive the world in one way and all women perceive the world in a different way. This is demonstrably untrue, unless you would like to enlighten us with a specific difference.

Likewise, there is no such thing as an ideal way to be a man or a women, which is implied when you say "Men, by virtue of having once been boys, have an experiential advantage in helping boys become men." There is no one kind of "man" to be (as opposed to human to be) and hence no better path for creating one.

Name a "man's value" which is not also a human value and which therefore can be taught only by a father and not a mother or non-nuclear male role-model. You can't.

What is a "man's experience" which can only be conveyed by a nuclear blood-relative? There are none.

What are your metrics for measuring the successful creation of a "man"? How do you define a "failed *man*" specifically as opposed to a failed human being? Without dealing with these issues specifically, your vague claims about "experience" are meaningless.

[unapatriciated]

225. bs

"In general, a person who has never been a boy is at a disadvantage in guiding the development of one."

My sons managed to grow up just fine considering I was disadvantage in guiding their development.
They all know how to pee standing up (they also learned to wash their hands).

[uppityperson]

160. Do you really park your kids in front of the tv all the time? Good god man

no wonder you are confused. You keep coming up with tv figures for role models. Most of the rest of us are involved with other people in the real world, as are our children. Role models come from all sorts of people and yes, a "mother figure" can be an adequate surrogate for young girls, as a "father figure" can be for boys. But most of us do more than park our kids in front of a tv for parenting and for role models.

[lumberjack_jeff]

167. You're repeating yourself.

Apoplexy is still funny.

[uppityperson]

181. You cannot refute what I say so you stoop to insults. Ah.

[lumberjack_jeff]

183. You're repeating yourself.

Who are you talking to?

[PerpetuallyDazed]

175. Society already role models gender

Unless you decide to keep your children in a cave, I can assure you they will be CONSTANTLY exposed to "what girls do" and "what boys do" ... I think there's a difference here between sex and gender.

[lumberjack_jeff]

189. That's the key problem.

Children ARE constantly exposed to social expectations about what boys and girls do. Girls go to college, and boys become philandering rockstars and athletes.

The reason for the difference that the girls have real, actual role models that set healthy archetypes to mitigate the cultural ones.

[unapatriciated]

194. Your niece and partner were good parents to their daughter.

Which means they had the skills to parent. It doesn't matter what gender the child is, all it means is they were good parents.

My son raised his children without their mother, the two oldest are girls and both graduated from HS with 3.8 and are now in College (one in her 4th year and the other in her 2nd year).
My daughter (Lesbian) has a son. He is now in HS and doing very well in sports and academics.
We all have personal experiences we can point to. What really matters is not gender but the skills and tools we need to parent.

[lumberjack_jeff]

199. Daughters raised by dads have an advantage.

Statistically, most if not all of a girls primary school teachers will be women, in a position to be respected and influential role models.

Obviously, an exemplary parent can do a good job regardless of the gender of the child.

With each generation, there are increasing sociological problems with boys, and many sociologists attribute it to alienation from male role models in positions of authority.

http://www.boysproject.net/statistics.html

[unapatriciated]

214. Sorry but don't agree

I raised three sons and one daughter. Their father decided when our youngest was eight months old that he really didn't like being a father and left. His leaving had nothing to do with his gender and everything to do with who he was as a person.
My children all have contact with him now as adults, but that meant they had to deal with his abandonment of them. I'm happy that they have a relationship with their dad but saddened that he missed out on the joy in raising them. I would have welcomed his help.

I take issue with these statements:

Your first Statment
"Statistically, most if not all of a girls primary school teachers will be women, in a position to be respected and influential role models."

With this statement You seem to be suggesting two things.
That girls have an advantage over boys in primary education because the majority of teachers are female.
Mothers are less important for a daughter being raised by her father because she will have all the positive female role models she needs in school.

This article has a different take on that.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article2034112.ece
'The report noted that only 16 per cent of teachers in primary schools, and 46 per cent of teachers in secondary schools, were men. But it concluded there was “very little evidence to date as to whether a teacher’s gender does or does not play a significant role in their pupils’ attainment”. It added that two thirds of pupils felt that the gender of their teacher was not important'

Your second staement
"With each generation, there are increasing sociological problems with boys, and many sociologists attribute it to alienation from male role models in positions of authority."

I think it has more to do with poverty and less to do with male role models.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/10/women_poverty.html
'Poverty rates for males and females are the same throughout childhood, but increase for women during their childbearing years and again in old age. The poverty gap between women and men widens significantly between ages 18 and 24—20.6 percent of women are poor at that age, compared to 14.0 percent of men. The gap narrows, but never closes, throughout adult life, and it more than doubles during the elderly years.'

This is an article written in 1997, not a whole lot has been done since then to solve the problem.
http://www.education.pitt.edu/ocd/publications/backgrounds/01.pdf

Poverty plays a bigger role than most want to admit.

[lumberjack_jeff]

215. Poverty plays a huge role, which brings us nicely back to the OP

Are parents-by-choice less likely to be impoverished? Of course. Nothing in the written story about the study suggests that any attempt was made to correct for socioeconomics.

When 84% of primary school teachers are one gender, it is unavoidably going to cause problems for the other.

We seem to have no problem with vigilance against any decline in the academic performance of girls, one of the main remedies of which is emphasis on recruiting more female math teachers.
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg86.html

[Juche]

34. Have they done a study showing bigots don't care about science?

Or evidence, or hypocrisy, or facts or any of that wimpy liberal shit.

[wickerwoman]

43. Thanks for this. It's not rocket science.

The happiest kids are 1.) wanted 2.) loved and 3.) financially supported.

As long as they have those three things, it doesn't matter if they have one, two, five or a hundred parents and it certainly doesn't matter what kind of genitals those parents have. The odds of them having all three of these things may be slightly increased the more parents they have, but it is entirely possible for a single parent to provide all of them.

As for kids needing a same sex role-model, they aren't being raised in a bubble. They likely have uncles, aunts, grandparents, older cousins, teachers, coaches, etc. Society does a lot more to inform our ideas about gender than our parents do anyway.

[upi402]

60. It's nurturing, not gender

k/r Thanks OP!
Dads are every bit as nurturing as mothers. And same sex parents every bit as nurturing as opposite sex parents.

But if this study was printed in the Bible itself, many many Christians would find an 'escape hatch from reason'.

[SallyMander]

68. "escape hatch from reason"

Love it, upi402 :D

[Political Heretic]

83. One thing I will say, at the risk of it being distorted by another poster.....

It is true that our culture imposes gender stereotypes on men as well as women. Nothing frustrates me more than pop culture's common depiction of "men" as stupid, selfish, aloof, detached from their feelings, lacking nurturing instincts toward children, and on and on.

I see this all the time on television.

That's very frustrating. While it may be true that gender stereotypes do create "trends" of attitudes or behaviors among men and women in our society, it is the people that those stereotypes marginalized - both male and female - that I'm most concerned about.

Deeply nurturing men raising children must get so sick and tired of seeing their society constantly telling them what "men" are like that looks nothing like them.

I guess, to some people, it might be offensive to even mention that, given that we men still live in a privileged patriarchal society that looks out for us first based on our sex, while women experience elevated levels of discrimination and stereotyping without the same access to privilege that men enjoy.

But I think we can find the room in our minds to think about all dimensions of stereotyping oppression - not just one.

[lumberjack_jeff]

97. Almost entirely agree.

The cultural diminishment of fathering as a valuable form of parenting contributes to the bullshit macho paradigm.

In fact, the justification for the former is the widespread belief in the latter. It's a self-perpetuating cycle; e.g. men can't be parents because they're perpetually children themselves.

The patriarchy isn't a privilege I enjoy and I have relevant experience to draw from. but otherwise I agree.

[Political Heretic]

99. I know - which is why I was loathed to post it.

But hey, I trust readers to be able to distinguish reasonable observation from the "white-racism" type posters railing about male sexism and the oppression of men in our society. :eyes:

[lumberjack_jeff]

104. Umm... I'm "the white racism type poster" to whom you refer and "know so well".

Guess you didn't know as well as you thought.

[Political Heretic]

179. Oh, no... I'm pretty sure I have you pegged to a fucking tee.

[lumberjack_jeff]

184. The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure...

... while the intelligent are full of doubt.
- Bertrand Russell.

It is apparent that you're pretty sure.

[Political Heretic]

188. Bertrand Russell was certainly not talking about judging an individual by their own words, beliefs

and behaviors.

Since he had substantial opinion about others, based on those very things - and I'm fairly certain he didn't consider himself stupid.

[lumberjack_jeff]

192. It is you who was bumping elbows with me at the expense of...

... that "white racist" crazy guy :eyes: upthread, because you were pretty sure you'd found an ally in your crusade.

You're not judging me on my words, you're judging me on a stereotype.

That bigotry neither breaks my bones nor picks my pockets, for it is not me which is burdened by it.

[Political Heretic]

193. Everyone reading and replying to you is judging you explicitly on what you say.

I don't even understand what your first sentence even means.

"White racist" crazy guy - that's you, in espousing equivalent nonsense suggesting the male sexist world of oppressed males pushed down by a matriarchical conspiracy to disempower men.

Not accusing you of being a white racist; accusing you of spewing nonsense as ridiculous and asinine as the notion of "reverse racism"

Of course you're going to say "no I'm not!" What else would you say.

But its transparently obvious to any reading your posts. Oh, wait I know - the reason why you have zero supporters to any of your posts is because DU is a big grand male-hating conspiracy. I forgot.

[lumberjack_jeff]

195. Oh, I see. It's worse than I thought.

I said that men were important to boys' development. Annoyed by this, you called me a crazy "white racism guy".

You then made a substantively good post about cultural norms, with the stated expectation that I'd disagree with it.

With a minor caveat, I agreed with the substantively good post.

You expressed gratitude in a conspiratorial nudge toward your new-found fellow traveler and ally against "white racism guy".

I pointed out that I was "white racism guy", and you actually know me very little.

Up to speed yet?

The world isn't a popularity contest. I'm content to be right and unpopular. That's one of the benefits of having had an active and supportive father. I'm unworried that I don't get to be in the mean girl club.

[Political Heretic]

197. Your words speak for themselves to anyone and everyone reading.

They can judge whether or not my characterization of your posts strikes them as inaccurate.

I've asked you a question several times now that you won't answer for me.

Describe for me what would be included in "proper" development of a boy? Please. Explain the specific guidance that boys need, but girls do not need, that must be passed on from other men.

What if you have no sex, but identify as a man - can you be a "proper" parent to a boy? What if you are intersexed? What if you are transgender - can a transgendered male be a proper parent to a boy, teach the boy the special "male" things that he needs to learn from men?

[lumberjack_jeff]

205. All the reasons tend to sound like "you know what's the matter with kids today?"

Boys are all too often raised with the idea that self-respect is not a prerequisite for self-esteem.

Self esteem allows a person to monopolize the shower, self-repect prevents it. Self esteem allows an adolescent to get his way around the house by verbally abusing the other family members, while self respect prevents it.

IMHO, nurturing as children mature needs to be tempered by showing that child that he does not live in a vacuum and that the others won't permit exploitation or being bullied.

There is TONS of anecdotal experience that teens who lack an involved male authority figure do not develop these traits until forced to by peers who won't tolerate the kind of footprint that untempered self esteem imposes. A dad is more likely to show junior that contrary to his self image, he's not "all that and a bag of chips", and even if he was, that doesn't give him the right to infinitely impose his wishes upon everyone else.

In my experience, moms think this is mean. It may or may not be, but it is still necessary. It even affects our use of language. "Discipline" used to be a positive noun, but now it's a negative verb.

[Political Heretic]

207. At no point in this reply did you reply with an answer to even one of my questions.

Here, let me number them for you

1. Describe for me what would be included in "proper" development of a boy? Please. Explain the specific guidance that boys need, but girls do not need, that must be passed on from other men.

You mention self-esteem and self-respect. But the question was explain the specific guidance that boys need that girls don't need that can only (or best( be given by a man?

What exactly about "self-esteem" and "self-respect" that is something that boys need and girls do not need, and how exactly it is that women cannot teach self-respect and self-esteem to boys?

"TONS of anecdotal experience" - you really did just write that, didn't you. :eyes:


Now for the rest of my questions:


2. What if you have no sex, but identify as a man - can you be a "proper" parent to a boy?

3. What if you are intersexed?

4. What if you are transgender - can a transgendered male be a proper parent to a boy, teach the boy the special "male" things that he needs to learn from men?

[lumberjack_jeff]

211. I've never been a girl, but I have been a boy.

When I was a child, I was confident I was going to be president. And an astronaut. And a baseball player.

Mom was happy to indulge these fantasies, "You can be whatever you want to be, so long as you're happy.". Kewl! Then why the fuck am I taking out the garbage? The President has people do that for him.

I conclude that she did it because that was the kind of parenting she needed as a child.

Dad made me understand that although goals and aspirations are healthy, everyone else has goals and aspirations too, and that my (normal) self-centered existence has to take them into consideration.

I knew when I was 18 that living in mom and dad's house at age 30 wasn't an option because I had learned both self respect and developed a realistic sense that I could (and should) achieve realistic goals.

As an aside, my 19 year old lives on his own a few miles away. Like all parents, I don't always agree with his choices, but he conducts himself in a conscientious fashion, and they are his choices and he and I both know he's a grownup. I respect that a great deal. He knows he can count on me, but I also know that his sense of self-respect makes that less likely.

Are moms capable of giving that kind of tough love? Some are, some aren't.

Intersexed? Transgendered?

Whatever, dude. If you want to have that conversation, you'll have to have it with someone else.

Men and women are different, and those tendencies translate to different parenting predispositions.

What's inescapable is that every man was once a boy, and that is a significant advantage.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23756519/

Now I've answered ALL of the relevant and sensible questions.

[wickerwoman]

234. You do realize that all women are not your mother and all men are not your father, right?

You're not actually allowed to extrapolate from your mother's actions to theorize on the capabilities of all women in a rational debate and still be taken seriously.

Weren't you the one disparaging anecdotal evidence up-thread?

[lumberjack_jeff]

240. PH asked specific questions about my parenting philosophy.

It's not possible to answer those questions without dipping a toe into the personal anecdote.

And there you go with "all" again.

[Political Heretic]

236. It's actually not true that every "man" was once a "boy"

http://www.healthline.com/galecontent/xx-male-syndrome

Or, look up gender assignment as a topic and dig in. Nature doesn't always deliver to the world babies with neat "xy" and "xx" chromosomes.

So you've answered all "sensible questions" - meaning you refused to answer any questions that you didn't like, because they're too complicated for your binary world view.

Don't let reality confuse you, man.

If you can't answer questions about intersexed (I'm referring to a biological factual reality - not a "label" for something culturally constructed), Transgender then you really don't have much ground to stand on and have anyone take you seriously.

So now you've been reduced to saying that Men and women have different "tendencies" (thus acknowledging that this is not absolutely true and can be false) as well as saying that Some mom's are capable of giving what you describe as "tough love."

So if that is not true, then it is not always the case that a male child needs a parent with XY chromosomes for the best child development.

Finally:

Mom was happy to indulge these fantasies, "You can be whatever you want to be, so long as you're happy.". Kewl! Then why the fuck am I taking out the garbage? The President has people do that for him.

I conclude that she did it because that was the kind of parenting she needed as a child.

Dad made me understand that although goals and aspirations are healthy, everyone else has goals and aspirations too, and that my (normal) self-centered existence has to take them into consideration.

You know what, I have almost the same story about my Mom and Dad and their differences. Though I didn't want to be President, I wanted to be Dale Murphy - a professional Baseball player that played for the Atlanta Braves.

So I guess I can really see your point here about differences between men and women.....



Oh wait... except that it my life, it was my MOM that said what your Dad said to you and my DAD that said what your mom said to you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

239. Republicans tend to be assholes.

But Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, therefore it's grossly unfair to consider Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin to be assholes. The "tendencies" don't matter unless they're absolute, right?

Despite the outliers there is enough legitimacy to the generalization to account for the results. By just about any measure, boys are clearly in crisis. They are less likely to get an education than the men of previous generations and their female peers. They are more likely to commit and be the victims of violent crime. They are more likely to commit suicide. One person's statistics is another persons stereotypical generality, I guess. I find less fulfillment in the idea that it's all their own fault than you appear to.

Trangendered kids face their own set of problems that I'm not equipped to fully understand.

I've thought about the question "what's tangibly different?". Tendencies are relevant enough to have systemic effect. Girls tend to create social relationships. Boys tend to compete.

Those social relationships are frequently the basis of a girls self-image. If the right friends like them, then they must be okay. It is the foundation, the fundamental power that "the mean girls" have over others.

The competition that boys engage in is based on disregard for those social relationships. "I'm the best there is, and maybe I'll prove it, maybe I won't. It doesn't matter what you think, because if you were as smart as me, you wouldn't think *you* are the best."

That fundamental difference results in a kind of self governance by girls that boys aren't equipped with. The members of a circle of friends can't be so transparently arrogant and self centered and remain a group. Boys don't learn that because the group is less important to them.

Girls form circles of friends. Boys form gangs and teams. The external purpose of the latter is mutual cooperation to attain a goal they couldn't individually, the internal purpose is proving superiority.

That arrogance is healthy and normal, but someone along the line has to bring that self-image in line with the need to treat others with respect.

When we say that a man suffers from "arrested development", what do we mean? Almost always we mean that the man is self-centered, egocentric and dismissive of the impact his choices have on others. Do women suffer from arrested development? What would that mean? If it doesn't mean the same thing as it means for a man, then doesn't it imply that suppressing that arrogance and egocentricity isn't a meaningful developmental milestone for girls?

Moms are less able to recognize the disciplinary need, because they've never had it. If junior has a circle of friends, the bratty selfishness will take care of itself, right? "I just don't understand; why doesn't he pick up his room? Does he think I'm his maid? How can he be so selfish?"

The answers are "no", "of course you don't", "yes" and "because he's built that way". They are as puzzled by their sons behavior as I am when a girl cries "Susie doesn't like me!"; I lack a frame of reference.

That's one relevant example top-down example, there are others.

The bottom-up dynamic remains. Mom is not a sufficient model for a boy to extrapolate what being a man is. Even an absent dad serves as a model through the words and attitudes of others. "I'm going to be a man in a few years. Mom says they're pigs. The TV says they're pigs. My teacher thinks they're pigs (but what does she know? School is obviously for girls)".

Inevitably, someone will post about "my ignorant stereotypes" about girls. "You clearly have no idea how girls work!"

They never step back for a moment to realize that this is exactly my point... In exactly the same way that I'm at a disadvantage in understanding girls, women are at a disadvantage understanding boys...

...and I've thought about this topic a lot.

[uppityperson]

190. Pot kettle

[anonymous171]

180. You ever notice how they only depict working class men that way? nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. An interesting snippet

in addition, single-mother households correlate to lower child delinquency rates, greater parental control and higher educational performance than single-father families.

Unmarried fathers who get custody of their children do so most often because mom has failed. By the time dad gets custody, junior is already a delinquent. Correct for that phenomenon and the study will have some validity.

[Odin2005]

73. It won't stop the bigots.

[Ignis]

86. Sad but true.

Still, it's nice to have scientific data available for those (very) few who will listen to reason and change their biases.

[SallyMander]

91. And, the more publicity studies like this get

the harder it will be for right wing bigots to convince the public that gay marriage/adoption will be the downfall of civilization as we know it. :eyes:

:hi:

[Ignis]

92. Exactly.

Sure, Republicans can play the "science don't know" card to great effect in elections, but good luck getting any reputable scientific agency to support policy that's founded in faulty data.

[RedCappedBandit]

93. Bigots don't use facts

Ironic, since they usually demand factual evidence to refute their bigotry.


Heck, perfect examples right in this thread.

[SallyMander]

96. Seriously

:(

[Starry Messenger]

108. My mom did fine alone.

I'm sure she would have appreciated help, but my brother actually has a hard time with male authority figures. Not all little boys need a daddy. (And no, my mother did not turn him against men.) My father did not like teens and was largely useless during our formative years. We both get along with him better now that we are all adults. I can't imagine what growing up with him in our home would have been like if my parents had not divorced.

edit to add: great article. :D

[Lord Helmet]

125. unfortunately bigots don't need no stinkin' science

[Missy Vixen]

134. My husband was brought up by his uncle and uncle's partner

His biological heterosexual parents weren't up to the task. They still aren't.

My husband managed to mature into a happy, secure, contributing member of society. Both his sisters were in the foster program. They still are struggling in their 30's.

I'm happy to see the results of this study. Children need dedicated, loving parents, no matter their gender or sexual orientation.

[lumberjack_jeff]

151. The fact that he had two male foster parents was an advantage.

He had role models with whom he could identify.

[bertman]

153. I am honored to have a number of gay friends same-sex couples who have

raised their kids without benefit of heterosexual parenting, and I'm happy to say that their children are bright, beautiful, thoughtful, well-rounded people.

Rec.

[lib_wit_it]

154. Well, it's just a "theory." (You know, like gravity.)

[northofdenali]

157. Sorry, but duh - to those of us who've seen it!

I have numerous friends who've raised kids, gay and lesbian. And transgendered (forgot Sandy, and she'll whup my ass for it....DAMN former Marines anyway...)

All a kid needs is love, discipline, direction and education. And the foremost? Love.

[libodem]

159. Good study

makes sense.

[thesquanderer]

164. How to end activism against gay parents

Here's what we say to all the people who are trying to prevent gay couples from raising children on the basis that it is in the best interests of the children to be raised by a mother and a father:

Studies show that two-parent households are best. Therefore, in all instances of divorce where there are children under 18 in the household, the children will be removed from both parents and placed in an adoptive two-parent household.

Since single parent households are at least as far from "ideal" as gay parent households, make things as difficult for single divorced parents as for coupled gay parents.

[progressoid]

172. Great thread...except that part in the middle...

That made my head hurt. :banghead:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

185. ...

:thumbsup:

[Starry Messenger]

201. Mad props to Political Heretic!

I have the poster he is arguing with on ignore, but watching the pwnage has been a treat. :thumbsup: Thank you PH!

[SallyMander]

227. No kidding, right??

I admire his fortitude!! I have a lot of reading to do to catch up... can't believe this thread is still going strong with so much discord. It is pretty disheartening. :(

[Starry Messenger]

230. Yeah, scary huh?

DU has a couple of these Men's Rights guys hiding in the forums. Usually they don't go on and on for hours though. I guess the Matriarchy felt particularly threatening this week to the poor soul.

[unapatriciated]

241. Good News It's only one chord.

[Bluenorthwest]

232. Indeedy

!!!!!!

[Forkboy]

213. I swear, when I clicked on the thread I knew one poster would be here for sure.

[Yurovsky]

242. K&R*

nt