June 7, 2010

It's not only okay to have 2 mommies. It's better.

Maybe:
A new study has found that the kids of lesbian parents turn out just as well-adjusted as their peers. What's more, they have fewer behavioral problems and greater self-confidence. That is to say, lesbian parents not only do just as well as hetero households on the child-rearing front, but they actually manage to do some things better....

Using a standard behavioral checklist, the parents evaluated their kids' emotional, social and academic behavior five times from birth until age 17, and the young'uns were interviewed at age 10 and age 17. The outcome: Kids raised by lesbians were less likely to have behavioral issues, and exhibited greater confidence and academic performance. 
So the mothers think well of their kids. Also:
[T]hese pregnancies were all planned.... [T]hese women had to actively seek out sperm donors and then undergo artificial insemination.

58 comments:

somefeller said...

From the article: One factor that seems awfully important here is that these pregnancies were all planned. Like, really, really planned. There were no forgotten pills, broken condoms or one too many glasses of red wine; these women had to actively seek out sperm donors and then undergo artificial insemination. It's always possible these results have less to do with gay parenting than with planned parenting -- not that ultra-conservatives would find that any less upsetting.

It would make sense that children raised in households that have a lot of stability and order from day one will do well on a lot of behavioral checklists. Many, if not most, children who score badly on such checklists come from unstable, disorderly households. It's really sad, in that often such unstable and disorderly households tend to be poorer (I'll leave it to others to debate whether such households are poor because they are unstable and disorderly or unstable and disorderly because they are poor), but these cycles tend to feed on themselves, regardless of the sexual preferences of the parents.

Revenant said...

Isaac Davis: I got a kid, he's being raised by two women at the moment.

Mary Wilke: Oh, y'know, I mean I think that works. Uh, they made some studies, I read in one of the psychoanalytic quarterlies. You don't need a male, I mean. Two mothers are absolutely fine.

Isaac Davis: Really? Because I always feel very few people survive one mother.

ricpic said...

Right, a boy raised by two mommies will grow into a confident man. Common sense says no, no matter what the sophisticates say.

somefeller said...

I clicked "publish" before finishing my thought.

Basically, households that are stable and planned (I'm not saying Stepford families - I mean families where the kids see the parents going to work on time, getting things done when needed and following up on homework and other things) tend to create more successful children, and the opposite is also true. The issue here may not be that the parents are lesbians, so therefore the children are more successful, but that lesbian households, for whatever reason come from or maintain the sort of parental culture that leads to better outcomes on average.

Dead Julius said...

The linked piece is creepy. It feels like the Salon writer needs to justify the childrens' existence in light of those like Dobson who would like these children to, well, not be.

I think we ought to take a different approach. These are American children, no matter what the gender of their parent(s). I think their Americanness and a little bit of their humanity is lost when they are measured in this way.

Gay people are going to have kids. Get used to it.

GMay said...

When you're ready to foist something upon people, begin your pitch with "studies have shown..."

So this "study" was published in the journal of pediatrics? I wonder if these are the same people who are for that 'ritual nick' garbage.

"Using a standard behavioral checklist, the parents evaluated their kids' emotional, social and academic behavior five times from birth until age 17..."

You said it professor.

Ladies, we're conducting a study to determine how well you raise children. But in an unprecedented scientific twist - you're going to present us the data using these standard forms. We'll be back in a few years for some interviews."

This is science???

Luke Lea said...

The fallacy of misplaced empiricism -- the assumption that things which are immeasurable, like happiness or well-adjustedness, can be measured. Social "scientists" commit this fallacy all the time.

k said...

Wait. Before I even read the link .. and I know AA hates that. So I apologize in advance.

But doesn't this whole thing just fall into the whole "if women do it, it's great, but men usually fark it up if they try" meme?

edutcher said...

Uh, OK, how do 2 women accidentally have a kid? OF COURSE, lesbian pregnancies are PLANNED. How the Hell else could they do it?

And, with equal surprise, these unions are found far superior to those old-fashioned, racist, sexist, genderist, homophobic Mom and Pop families.

The survey is carried out by universities in San Fran and Amsterdam. So, of course, it's perfectly objective.

Nothing to see here, just move along...

Chase said...

k,

the answer is yes. Does anyone believe for even one second that if this same "study" found the opposite results that it would be published in the same place, or any Main Stream Outlet, anywhere?

The answer to that question tells you everything that you need to know about the validity of this so-called "study".

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

I wanna barf. There were a couple of lesbos out to our business the other day. The had in tow some poor androgynous kid, about 4. I thought his name was Caleb, since that's what they seem to have said.

A bit later I gave the kid a plant, as we often do, and said "This is for you, Caleb." One of the 'mothers' said "No, the name is Kale-uh" to which I responded "Do you mean Kayla?"

With no response from the female front of me, I asked "Caleb or Kayla? Boy or Girl?" The lesbos responded, almost in unison "Both ... and neither."

S-I-C-K.

I don't give a rat's ass how much alphabet soup is behind somebody's name. This is most definitely not healthy, and it is not as good as having a father an a mother.

The poor kid will be identity challenged for life, and most probably a long-term parasite.

somefeller said...

And thus far, the criticisms of this survey on this thread can be summed up as: (i) the people who put it together are all libruls so I ain't gonna truss it, (ii) the people who put it together live in highly cultured urban centers so the study must be wrong and (iii) oh how I hates teh gays. No surprise.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ritmo Brasileiro said...

We should all just outsource child-rearing to a big, nanny-run nursery. On second thought, maybe we shouldn't.

In America, there is no shortage of desire - or, as economists call it "demand". (At least until the Great Obama Recession of 2008). This is so true that women don't even want to be women; they want to be hyper-competitive men - perhaps even hypermasculine when it comes to some traits. It's pretty pathetic.

I predict that the lesbian will one day become the American sexual ideal across the board - if it isn't secretly so already.

AC245 said...

And thus far, the criticisms of this survey on this thread can be summed up as: (i) the people who put it together are all libruls so I ain't gonna truss it, (ii) the people who put it together live in highly cultured urban centers so the study must be wrong and (iii) oh how I hates teh gays. No surprise.

Well, they could be summed up that way, but it would be rather inaccurate and deceptive for you to so so.

The actual critical comments of the survey observe that
1. The survey was conducted in unrepresentative urban areas (SF and Amsterdam).
2. The survey relies on self-reporting.
3. The survey relies on non-objectively-quantifiable metrics.
4. The survey relies on a skewed, self-selected sample.


The study is probably as valid as, say, a study by Focus on the Family of churchgoers in the Bible belt who are asked to fill out a survey rating themselves on goodness and spirituality, which concludes that churchgoers in the Bible belt are better, more spiritual people than non-churchgoers outside the Bible belt.

Dead Julius said...

Ritmo said...

I predict that the lesbian will one day become the American sexual ideal across the board - if it isn't secretly so already.

It's the fault of men if that happens.

Eric said...

Right, a boy raised by two mommies will grow into a confident man. Common sense says no, no matter what the sophisticates say.

It's not the men I would worry about, it's women. Yes, there is a selection bias, and yes interviews are the worst way to measure this kind of stuff. But even beyond that the study stops too early. I would like to see how many of the daughters were able to form stable heterosexual relationships.

Girls raised without a man in the house don't know how to relate to men. You see this all the time with girls raised by single mothers - I doubt the lesbians do any better.

traditionalguy said...

Loving and raising children is the greatest priviledge we get in this life. My sincere congratulations to lesbian moms for being so good at it.

somefeller said...

The actual critical comments of the survey observe that 1. The survey was conducted in unrepresentative urban areas (SF and Amsterdam). 2. The survey relies on self-reporting. 3. The survey relies on non-objectively-quantifiable metrics. 4. The survey relies on a skewed, self-selected sample.

Actually, the comments on this thread before my comment didn't say that (except maybe item 1, though that criticism was more of a simple slam on SF and Amsterdam and the article doesn't say where the samples were from, just the home bases of the surveyors), so I'm not being deceptive, and I am correctly describing the tone of critics of the survey on this thread. But kudos to you for coming up with some actual criticisms that are worth considering.

Palladian said...

"I wanna barf. There were a couple of lesbos out to our business the other day."

I pity the poor dykes for giving you a single dime of their money. Is there a way I can contact them and tell them what an asshole you are and not to patronize your business anymore?

somefeller said...

I pity the poor dykes for giving you a single dime of their money. Is there a way I can contact them and tell them what an asshole you are and not to patronize your business anymore?

I suspect the lesbians won't be back to his business, as I find it unlikely that they or anyone else would find anything there worth making a second trip.

edutcher said...

somefeller said...

And thus far, the criticisms of this survey on this thread can be summed up as: (i) the people who put it together are all libruls so I ain't gonna truss it, (ii) the people who put it together live in highly cultured urban centers so the study must be wrong and (iii) oh how I hates teh gays. No surprise.

Montagne/Alpha/HD/garage/Freder invokes the usual Althouse Hillbilly routine when someone (several of them, actually) finds fault with a survey that has findings which fly in the face of decades of scientific data.

i) Misspells liberals because it makes him feel superior without rebutting any of the criticisms.

ii) Says SF (think the Castro street fest) and Amsterdam (girls for rent in windows) are highly cultured urban centers because the Lefties run them.

As noted before, if the homosexuals didn't vote Demo, the faux outrage wouldn't exist.
iii) Projects his own neuroses onto the people he hates.

Jeff said...

"Actually, the comments on this thread before my comment didn't say that "

Horse shit. Gmay and Luke Lea posted valid arguments almost 40 minutes before your tirade.

somefeller said...

Gmay and Luke Lea posted valid arguments almost 40 minutes before your tirade.

If you think my comment was a tirade, you are really oversensitive. Maybe you should lay down and put a cool compress on your head.

EDH said...

"Scissor me timbers!"

Jeff said...

"It's always possible these results have less to do with gay parenting than with planned parenting -- not that ultra-conservatives would find that any less upsetting."

Yes. God, I find that HORRIBLY upsetting.

Once again the Dumb Or Evil mindset appears. As has been pointed out many, many times, to a liberal there is absolutely no logical reason for anyone to not be a liberal like them. You're either too Dumb to know better or have an Evil motive.

In this case, you're either too Dumb to use rubbers and abortions, or part of an Evil christian plot to keep women barefoot and pregnant.

Jeff said...

"If you think my comment was a tirade, you are really oversensitive. Maybe you should lay down and put a cool compress on your head."

Oh, look at that! A smug twit attempting to ignore the fact that he got caught in a blatant lie by acting flippant and condescending! I've never seen that on the internet.

I repeat:

"Gmay and Luke Lea posted valid arguments almost 40 minutes before your tirade."

I see you've cleverly deleted your lying post, too. Darn shame someone quoted it first.

write_effort said...

When my daughter was small, it seemed what impressed straight moms the most was that my partner (also female) and I were both equally willing and happy to change diapers.

That said, we don't want to be seen as "better" than straight parents because that too would deny the real variety among lesbians. This study seems like a small beginning to look at a subset of parents. It had many limitations and I assume that the published paper acknowledges this. That would be standard for this kind of research.

William said...

I don't doubt it possible for two lesbians to successfully raise a child. I doubt, however, the possibility of publishing a study that suggests otherwise.....I remember reading somewhere that there were more incidents of physical abuse among partners in the gay community than in the straight. Perhaps such conflicted couples don't adopt children, but if they do, the guess here is that their children will have a fair amount of problems.

somefeller said...

I see you've cleverly deleted your lying post, too. Darn shame someone quoted it first.

I haven't deleted anything. All my posts are still here, including the one cited by AC. The deleted post was from Ritmo Brasileiro. Better get that cold compress out, chief, you're overheating.

Jeff said...

Whoops. My mistake.

But this doesn't change the fact that you're a shameless fucking liar.

Now make a crack about how I need to retreat to my fainting couch to prove how cool you are on the internet.

Jeff said...

Oooh! Even better, call me a hypocrite! That's the super-ultra-trump card of internet jackassery!

traditionalguy said...

This post brings back a really special memory.I once loved a very smart neighborhood friend through my elementary school days and high school days, and later college days attending different colleges in different cities. She married another person. Sometime later I heard that she had divorced and had become a much published author and Psychologist in Berkeley. Checking the Internet a few years back I found that she was an authority in the psychology of Lesbian Bi-sexual relationships. Among her books I also found volumes of published poetry and read award winning poems on poetry websites. They brought back strong memories of her most unique female personality. Anyway, she was living as a lesbian; and one of her most beautiful poems was about her love for a daughter she adopted along with her female partner. Life is full of many good folks that make good memories along the short years of our lives.

Bruce Hayden said...

One of the instances that I know of, high school seniors "adopted" a kindergartener. Since the school gradually increased class sizes from K through 12, there were 2-3 seniors per younger student.

The one young student, a girl, had two mothers. And she had three adopted seniors, two girls and a boy. She did great with the girls, but was absolutely petrified of the boy. At first glance, you would think that it was the boy. It wasn't. He is great with young kids. Rather, the young girl had two mothers, and their daughter had had almost no interactions with adult males whatsoever. Even by the end of the year, after doing things together once or twice a month, the young girl still had barely started to acclimate to the presence of an adult (18 year old) male.

I have no doubt that the two mothers thought that they were doing a great job at parenting. And, talking to Lesbian friends, I know that some such parents do go to great length to make sure that their daughters are fully socialized in this respect. But in this case??

I am even more worried about Lesbian couples raising boys. Yes, some women can successfully socialize male children. But they are rare, which is why the prisons are mostly filled by men raised without fathers.

Can it all be done well? I have no doubt. But I will still suggest that looking back at, say 30 year olds, and comparing kids from planned heterosexual families to homosexual families, that seeing both sexes and sex roles will have proven beneficial.

That said, I would think that two Lesbians are far more likely to be successful at raising kids than most single mothers are. First, there are two of them, and secondly, it will be planned.

MnMark said...

This ("lesbians are actually better at raising children than normal parents") is all entirely predictable. It's like the way every study of men and women has to point out that women aren't just equal to men, they're actually better.

Just more of the continuing work of the progressives to make down into up and up into down. It is plain obvious common sense that all other things beings equal, the married biological mother and father of a child are going to be healthier for a child than a pair of lesbians or a pair of gays.

(By the way, if two lesbian women do better as parents than a normal couple, does that mean that two gay men make worse parents? Why do I think that a "study" put out by the progressives would also find that gay men are better than a normal couple?)

I so pity the children of these pairings. Someone once said that children are the original conservatives - that they just want to be normal and fit it - and I can't imagine how hard it must be to have a pair of homosexuals for "parents". And no, we're not going to twist all of society around to try to pretend that that is "normal" so that the kids of these pairings don't feel so abnormal. You can't fool mother nature.

MnMark said...

And I'd like to hear how these lesbian women address the child's questions about who his/her father is, when they get old enough to figure out that they should have a father. I can only imagine the yearning that child would have to have a father, to know him, and the guilt the child would have for wanting to have a father since it would seem like a betrayal of his/her lesbian "mothers" to have such a desire. After all, that would mean there was something less than perfectly normal and healthy about a pair of lesbians raising a child.

Methadras said...

I just want to know who the actual researcher was that came up with retarded idea and how much money they bilked from government to conduct it.

Geoff Matthews said...

n=84.

This really isn't generalizable. Is it too much to ask the reporters to understand that?

Freeman Hunt said...

Related to this methodology: I've been surveying myself every few years to see how I'm doing, and I've found that I'm doing pretty great! For example, my surveys show that in disagreements with my husband, I have been right every single time and that I am a better driver than the other drivers on the road. According to myself, I am a good friend, an excellent mother, a great wife, and am correct in all of my political positions. I have, of course, always suspected these things, but I'm glad I surveyed myself because it is nice to have these conclusions backed by science.

Joe Giles said...

You'd hope these kids get two excellent mothers. That might almost make up for depriving them of a father.

GMay said...

somefeller lied: "Actually, the comments on this thread before my comment didn't say that...so I'm not being deceptive, and I am correctly describing the tone of critics of the survey on this thread."

Actually, you're full of shit...and you've been called on it...and while trying to pull off calm condescension to mask the fact that you fucked up, you've managed to make a complete ass of yourself. :)

AC245 said...

Freeman Hunt wins the thread.

(And if you don't believe me, I'll be happy to scientifically prove this statement is correct by providing the results of a survey I conducted which asked me to provide my opinion on this very question.)

GMay said...

AC245 and FH,

But do you have the standard forms?

AC245 said...

Actually, the comments on this thread before my comment didn't say that (except maybe item 1, though that criticism was more of a simple slam on SF and Amsterdam and the article doesn't say where the samples were from, just the home bases of the surveyors), so I'm not being deceptive, and I am correctly describing the tone of critics of the survey on this thread.

You continue to lie, somefeller.

Criticism #1 that I cited was made by edutcher at 9:16 PM.
Criticism #2: noted by GMay at 8:59 PM.
Criticism #3: offered by Luke Lea at 9:03 PM.
Criticism #4: from Gmay and edutcher at 8:59 PM and 9:16 PM.

All of these preceded the dishonest, illiterate "summary" comment you made at 9:38 PM.

RuyDiaz said...

(On first examination....)

What a bad study. Two fatal flaw:

1) It was a self-reported study.

2) Where are the control groups?

I would have to read the actual study, not the summary, to see whether it's an actual, honest-to-god scientific study, or propaganda disguised as science.

But my working hypothesis is that no conclusions can be draw from it.

Revenant said...

I have, of course, always suspected these things, but I'm glad I surveyed myself because it is nice to have these conclusions backed by science.

Meow!

paul a'barge said...

But wait ... I thought it was all about how much better it would be for children to have some parents rather than to live in an orphanage.

You mean that lesbians are passing up all those needy children on their way to the sperm bank with turkey baster in hand?

Who knew?

rhhardin said...

I was raised before adjustment checklists.

Pogo said...

Last night on a walk in my neighborhood, I witnessed a small gang of fatherless young men attack a 9 year old riding his bike on the bike path in the public park downtown, trying to pull him off and take his bike (a recurrent problem hereabouts).

The kid had the face of fear.

I ran to him and shouted and they let him go, laughing their asses off ("Did you see his face? Kid was scared! Hahaha.").

Last week, they beat up an older guy riding his bike when he tried to go around them (they were blocking the path). Then they robbed a kid of his laptop.

The experiment without fathers hasn't been a rousing success so far, but keep plugging, scientists. We sorely need this kind of data. Me? I need concealed carry, fast.

Skyler said...

Not having behavior problems is a euphemism for being a sissy.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

I'm troubled by the idea that "greater confidence" is a measure of success. Seems like great confidence (without support) can be as negative as it can be positive.

- Lyssa

Pogo said...

The laughing yoots engaged in the attack were, I am certain, not suffering from low self-esteem, and they were very very confident.

Shame, restraint, and delayed gratification were distinctly lacking, however.

A.W. said...

*facepalm*

um, shouldn't the story actually be... kids raised in lesbian relationships more likely to be percieved normal?

Chase said...

kids raised in lesbian relationships more likely to be percieved normal?

That would be correct.

Who wants so badly to create that perception that they would publish under the sacred word "study" something actually useless?

Anyone?

Fred4Pres said...

Nonsense.

I know plenty of Lesbian moms and they are wonderful mothers (at least the ones I know). But 2 great moms does not equal the dynamic of one great mom and one great dad. Fathers bring things that children, male and female need. Male children are more likely to join gangs if a father is not home. Female children need a father figure to set the goals they look for in a mate.

t-man said...

I would suggest that "planned" kids are more likely to have parents (older, gay, whatever) who spoil them and see no wrong, because it was a huge effort to have them.

My girls' school is filled with older parents. I think my kids are better behaved and well-adjusted than most, but when we go to parent teacher conferences, we specifically ask if they are behaving well. More than one teacher has remarked that our attitude is unusual, because most parents resist any suggestion that their kids are not angels 24/7.

The self-reporting aspect of this makes me skeptical.

Duncan said...

So, as we all know gender is so important that that some people have to be sliced and diced to change and change back before getting it right. And gender is so important that some people have to defy all social conventions in seeking nirvana with a person of the same sex.

But when it comes to children, the gender and the blood links of parents with their own children are utterly insignificant. In fact you're better off with No Mama, No Papa, No Uncle Sam.

That being the case, the best interests of the child would seem to require that only lesbians be allowed to repro.

I seem to recall that at one time progressives believed that creche-raised children (i.e. zero parental involvement) were superior to parent-raised children. You don't get as much of that as you used to. I wonder why that argument was dropped? It survives only in the argument that day-cared kids in spite of the diseases and human bite problems are no worse off than mom-cared kids.

bagoh20 said...

If half the parental dynamic is not required then maybe neither is. The Matrix can't be far away.