×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Parenting Official Says Lesbians Make 'Better Parents'

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the it-takes-an-amazon-tribe-to-raise-a-child dept.

Idle 30

Stephen Scott, director of research at the National Academy for Parenting Practitioners, says that lesbian couples have traditional couples licked when it comes to raising children. He cites research that suggests children with two female parents are more aspirational than those with opposite-sex parents. From the article, "Research at Birkbeck College, part of London University, and Clark University in Massachusetts suggests that same-sex couples make good parents because children cannot be conceived accidentally — parents must make an active decision to adopt or find a sperm donor. "

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

30 comments

Hmmm. Something lacking... (1)

dov_0 (1438253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30121908)

A male role-model perhaps? Psychologically important for both males and females. Basic psychology here...

Re:Hmmm. Something lacking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30122082)

Men and Women are different, but in almost all areas the person to person variation simply dwarfs the difference in the average. Men do somewhat better than women at spatial reasoning, for example, but if you pick to people at random there is still an excellent chance that the woman will trounce the man.

Of course, the children should still be exposed to positive male examples— but it doesn't have to be someone in the house. Or do you think that the children of white heterosexual couples are deprived because they lack asian, black, or even gay role models in their homes?

Very PC, but not a good response, AC (1)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 4 years ago | (#30124964)

We're biologically programmed to react to the sexes. I know in a comment to an article on gay couples this seems like a counter assertion, but it's not. You can grow up het or grow up gay, but your relationships with women will be different from your relationships with men. It comes from not just the parents but all of society bombarding you with sex role differences. However, the very strongest influence is the one right there in the house.

Rather than go all PC on his ass, a more reasonable tack would be to point to single parents. Kids coming from single parent families can do just fine in the sex role area.

That said, in this case, they have an example (unless the parents break up, which gays do just like breeders) of a loving relationship between their parents, which is certainly a good thing, but certainly they'll have less of a straight-forward, societal norms compliant, sex/role match according to the common paradigm as one would if his or her mother and father were were Farah Fawcett and Vin Diesel.

Re:Very PC, but not a good response, AC (1)

dov_0 (1438253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30128052)

Single parent families do have problems. Female children without a father figure (in home) reach menarche much earlier for example. Boys also develop faster physically. This is dwarfed by the emotional development differences. PC be stuffed. The norm is male/female. We need both role models as we grow up.

Re:Very PC, but not a good response, AC (1)

jayme0227 (1558821) | more than 4 years ago | (#30129988)

So you would like to ban single parent families then? Me too. Let's get to work. We should be able to get plenty of your friends who agree with the necessity of having both male and female parents to join us. Legislation should be quick and easy.

Re:Very PC, but not a good response, AC (1)

dov_0 (1438253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30134776)

Seriously I do not personally know anyone who has deliberately planned to become a single parent. It generally happens by mistake or misfortune. In fact, my own mother was a single parent who finally got married again so her kids could have a Dad.

Re:Very PC, but not a good response, AC (1)

jayme0227 (1558821) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136532)

Well, there are plenty of states who allow single parent adoption but disallow gay adoption. That's how Rose O'Donnell got her kids before she came out of the closet. The only reason for circumstances like this is homophobia.

Regardless, I cannot see any reasonable argument that says that children are better off bouncing from foster home to foster home than with two parents who want to raise them. There is nothing that I have seen that says the first situation is better, outside of homophobic paranoia.

Re:Very PC, but not a good response, AC (1)

dov_0 (1438253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136640)

I have some grave misgivings about single parent adoption as well. Perhaps IVF technology has made adoption less popular for couples.

Re:Very PC, but not a good response, AC (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#30130224)

Citation needed. This is just your opinion until you present, you know, some actual evidence besides your baseless assertions. The article cites research. You cite opinions. You do know the difference, right?

Oh, and you have some facts wrong. Female children with their genetic father in home reach menarche later, but female children with a non genetic father figure in home reach it MUCH earlier. Which says NOTHING about the emotional development.

In my opinion, the norm, based on tens of thousands of years of prehistoric human culture, is small tribal groups where everyone raises everyone and no one knows who fathered who for sure. That's what how we evolved. Anything less than that, including the one man one woman hetero-normative nuclear family, is sub-optimal. It takes a village to raise a child. Insulated one man one woman nuclear families pass on serious crazy to defenseless children. In a larger group, children see individual craziness for what it is, and can put it in perspective, but in a nuclear family, crazy is often just normal.

Men and women may be different, but gender is a fuzzy concept. There is physical gender, emotional gender, intellectual gender, and sexual gender, and any one person can get a mix. For instance, I'm pretty sure this one friend of mine got the physical and sexual gender of a male (he likes girls) but the emotional and intellectual gender of a woman (he is a hard core metrosexual who most people assume is gay) Often in heterosexual relationships, you will get one partner with a preponderance of gender traits in the female column, and one with the preponderance in the male column. The lipstick lez and the bull dyke. The mincing pillow biter and the rugged daddy. Stereotypes, yes, but I've had more gay friends than I can count and there's something to those stereotypes. And in hetero relationships, you can get two of the same type, or even get them reversed. My metrosexual friend dated a tomboy for a while. If they'd married, the kids would have had to ask mom to play catch, and dad for fashion advice.

In short, your arguments are biased, and not based in reality. You have this fantasy of how the world should be in your head. It must either hurt you very badly when the world refuses to go along with your illusions, or make you stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU EVERYTHING IS THE WAY I THINK IT SHOULD BE LALALA." Or both.

Re:Very PC, but not a good response, AC (1)

dov_0 (1438253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30134820)

Have you any citations or just opinions? Nice story that you've 'spun'.

Re:Very PC, but not a good response, AC (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#30134996)

I note where I am giving my opinions. Tell me what, in particular, would you like citations for and I'll find them for you.

Re:Hmmm. Something lacking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30124936)

...yeah... tell that to all of the single mothers (and single fathers) who have been abandoned by their child's father (mother).

Re:Hmmm. Something lacking... (1)

dov_0 (1438253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30128060)

...yeah... tell that to all of the single mothers (and single fathers) who have been abandoned by their child's father (mother).

I'm sure they know it all too well already. All the single parents I know do. It's tough.

Re:Hmmm. Something lacking... (1)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 4 years ago | (#30125004)

A male role-model perhaps? Psychologically important for both males and females. Basic psychology here...

Let's get right to the bottom line: should same sex couples have the right to adopt and raise children? I am an enthusiastic thumbs up. The nicest kids I know from my kids school come from a couple of 2 mommy families. I'm much happier having my son influenced by those kids than by children from homes where the parent(s) are not really actively parenting.

Hmm (1)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 4 years ago | (#30124304)

It kind of seems like men are just big, hairy, smelly, and violent brutes who are completely superceded by women. It seems like all the PC research that comes out says that women are better at basically everything.

There's actually some truth in that : as society becomes more and more regimented and controlled and more 'civilized', men are at a disadvantage. A lot of the risk taking behaviors that men were rewarded for in the past are now likely to result in problems. Since so few people in society die from violence, the protective abilities of men are now not so valuable.

There are some valuable roles for men, still. Basically everything that was ever invented or designed was created by a man, even now. While some may blame societal pressure, I suspect than men's neural nets may make them better inventors and engineers on average than women.

Hmmm (2, Interesting)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 4 years ago | (#30125024)

I knew one little girl who was raised by two mommies. It was interesting. With her mom around, she was a little beast, yelling at me, an adult, if I was walking into the neighbor's yard to chat with him, "You're not allowed there" or if in the kitchen, "You're not allowed to eat that". Etcetera etcetera.

But when her mommy wasn't around, she was a perfect angel, a little precious sweetheart you'd love for a daughter who would sit on your lap for hours while you told her stories - asked politely to hold your hand when you crossed the street. Her mom was putting her up to telling people off. Very unpleasant behavior, really.

But that aside, what are women teaching our children anyway? To sit still in a classroom, and then an office? Not to make waves. To work your eight hours, buy your meat at the store, go home watch Dancing With The Idols, and sleep to do it again tomorrow?

That's a load of BS. It's time for men to be men. We should be able to hunt. We should be able to confront each other. We should be encouraged to compete and to play and to roughhouse.

In an effort to increase the role of women in society, we have changed the role of men. That's why more girls go to college today than boys. That's why girls do better in school. That's why women under 30 make more than men. Congratulations, society has changed. Women did not become winners and equal to men, but rather men lost what they were and what made life fun.

Re:Hmmm (1)

delire (809063) | more than 4 years ago | (#30128642)

We should be encouraged to compete and to play and to roughhouse.

That's all very lovely, the fact remains however that physical aptitude - the core value of the Male in a given society - has become increasingly irrelevant in post industrial Western society. Women are, by most accounts, able to do just fine without us. They are just as competitive and just as able, technically or otherwise. No conclusive evidence suggests otherwise.

In the broader scheme of things it's our own scientific and social revolutions that have outmoded the role of the male gender. Masculinity, it would seem looking at lesbian couples I've known, is something in itself relatively easily approximated where roles and children are concerned.

Careful now (2, Funny)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#30125804)

You can't use terms like 'licked' in this kind of article submission. Somebody's going to call you on the carpet for that.

Re:Careful now (1)

bostei2008 (1441027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30127948)

thousands of slashdotters racking their brains right now...

Re:Careful now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30130714)

... with either the right or left hand. My guess is most will use the left, as the right hand is for the mouse.

The bible (1)

Sam36 (1065410) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126138)

The bible deems this as sin and society deems this as just an alternative choice. Who should I follow after? Earthly things or heavenly things? I hate how in pictures they always have these couples smiling and looking happy. It really makes me feel guilty when I have to say that this is sin. But alas, I pursue after the heavenly things, and it has been a blessing in my life. Therefore I must tell everyone. Regardless of how happy satan makes a person seem.

Truth cannot be assualted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126844)

Sin is not real. You were created perfect. The idea of sin is the idea that you can overcome god's will and twist into evil. That is impossible. You are god's will, not something that opposes it. You cannot change what you are, nor do you really want to.

The world that you see with your eyes is the world that believes in sin. The fact that the world believes in sin has no effect upon the truth that it is not real. If sin is real, you and god are not... this is not so.

You are altogether irreplaceable in the Mind of God. No one else can fill your part in it, and while you leave your part of it empty your eternal place merely waits for your return. God, through His Voice, reminds you of it, and God Himself keeps your extensions safe within it. Yet you do not know them until you return to them. You cannot replace the Kingdom, and you cannot replace yourself. God, Who knows your value, would not have it so, and so it is not so. Your value is in God's Mind, and therefore not in yours alone. To accept yourself as God created you cannot be arrogance, because it is the denial of arrogance. To accept your littleness is arrogant, because it means that you believe your evaluation of yourself is truer than God's.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30127334)

Well, 4 tits are better then 2, that's only advantage I see otherwise ....

Notes from Psychology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30127714)

According to the research literature in Psychology, which was collected by lesbian psychologists with a pro-lesbian bias, lesbian parents of adopted children leave the child in a confused state, because the lesbian parents have other sexual partners.

I see what you did there.... (2, Interesting)

moxley (895517) | more than 4 years ago | (#30128568)

with your "have traditional couples licked.." pun....

You're referring to cunnilingus.......yes, see, because the article is about lesbians...yeah...nicely done. You, sir, are a treasure...

But in all seriousness, I think that it ridiculous that people are against same sex parents; it's not like those of us who are heterosexual have done such a great job - plenty of people do, but plenty of people don't...If someone wants to raise a child and is going to give that child/children love and take care of them, then it shouldn't matter what their gender attraction is. Parents are parents, and the people who have this hatred or bias towards gey people need to get over it, because gay people have been around since the beginning of time and they'll be around - it seems to be inherent in nature.

It makes me wonder why people fight it, but then I remember that often the staunchest anti-gay legislators and politicians are the ones who are secretly gay.....

C&C (1)

anglophobe_0 (1383785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30130258)

Unfortunately, I think this is a classic case of correlation being mistaken for causation. The post itself says the reason they're better parents is that they don't have kids by accident. In other words, the real lesson here is that parents who want their kids make better parents. Gasp!

Although I oppose government-defined same-sex marriage, I can't complain about same-sex couples adopting. If singles can adopt, same-sex couples should be able to as well. I may not agree with their morality, but then again, I don't agree with most peoples' morality, and they still get to adopt.

i'll do my part (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 4 years ago | (#30130388)

i volunteer to impregnate these women... so long as they are healthy and attractive to mine eyes. It's for the good of the gene pool!

Re:i'll do my part (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 4 years ago | (#30156348)

i volunteer to impregnate these women... It's for the good of the gene pool!

You have some evidence to support your unstated assumption that your genes are better for the gene pool than those of some randomly-selected guy?

And of course - there's no reason to believe that same-sex couples who make an active choice to produce a kid are going to take random genes for their child (children) ; if they exercise any significant degree of choice, then you're really unlikely to get any action at all from this argument. You may be setting yourself up to be excluded from the gene pool, on the basis that you can't see the blindingly obvious.

Re:i'll do my part (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 4 years ago | (#30156646)

LoL. If i hadn't already posted in this thread i'd throw you a +1 Funny. Well played, sir. You owe me a keyboard.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...