Yesterday on the Blend I posted an unbelievable press release by a San Diego-based licensed clinical psychologist named Trayce Hansen, who attempted to portray marriage equality as somehow dangerous to children. As reader drsivana99 put it, in Latin one would call it bunchaassolus fullashitimus.
Thanks to another Blender out there, word got to Dr. Thomas Marra, also a practicing clinical psychologist and author, who decided he couldn't let Hansen's diatribe sit out there unchallenged.
Both are below the fold.
A recap — here's the wisdom of Dr. Trayce Hansen:
Love Isn't Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children.***
First, mother-love and father-love–though equally important–are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it's the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that's essential to a child's development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. What a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.Secondly, children progress through predictable developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father. For example, during infancy, babies of both sexes tend to do better in the care of their mother. Mothers are more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and thus are more appropriately responsive. Fathers are generally needed later when they play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially and daughters from acting out sexually. When there's no father to perform this function, a boy is more likely to become delinquent and incarcerated and a girl is more likely to become promiscuous and pregnant.
Third, boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. As example, boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while girls generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a child keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching–verbally and nonverbally–the worth of the opposing tendencies.
Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by implying all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes–influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message–will grow up thinking it doesn't matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some–if not many–impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to a greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modeled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.
Human sexuality is pliant. Consider ancient Greece or Rome–among other early civilizations–where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. This was not so because most of those men were born with a "gay gene," rather it was because homosexuality was condoned by those societies. That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.
And fifth, if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage. If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on children would be disastrous. And what happens to the children of these alternative marriages if the union dissolves and each parent then "remarries"? Those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers, or, you fill in the blank.
And the response sent in to me from Dr. Thomas Marra:
Opinion vs. ScienceSlam…dunk.Dr. Hansen's article was fortunately labeled "opinion," since none of her remarks are based upon psychological science. In fact, her entire article is based upon beliefs and values that have little been influenced by psychological research or theory. One would hardly know she is a clinical psychologist, given her presumptions that are flawed. It appears that she engages in reverse reasoning: "I believe that a child should have a mother and father as parents, so let me design some reasoning to support this thesis."
Dr. Hansen's reasoning is flawed on 4 fundamental points. First, she engages in sexism by presuming that mothers are primarily permissive and fathers are primarily limit setters. Clinical psychologists spend much of their time dealing with patients who have been psychologically wounded by the conditional love of their mothers, and the passive and uninvolved relationships with their fathers. Alternatively, and even more destructively, we treat adult children who had unattached mothers. One of the single most destructive environmental influences a child can have during their development is lack of attachment (Bolby's research shows lifelong interpersonal disability for children who were raised by their primary caretaker's inability to attend to the emotional nuances of an infant's behavior). While it is true that traditionally such attachment experiences inhere in the mother's behavior, this is a sociological factor (that mother's are identified by society as the primary caretaker of the infant) that is learned behavior based upon expectation and social demands. There is nothing preventing a male from performing similar functions.
Second, she engages in artificial bifurcation of parenting functions (one as being unconditional love and the other as conditional love). Certainly children need both love and limit-setting. But the kind of bifurcation Dr. Hansen suggests could easily result in "splitting," a psychological defense mechanism whereby the child begins to identify one parent as "all good" and the other as "all bad." In fact, the best parenting involves both love and rule-setting behavior on the part of both parent. It is the ability of the parent to exhibit both kinds of behavior that predicts mental health in the child. So gender is not the relevant variable; parenting behavior is the relevant variable to examine.
Third, Dr. Hansen draws upon the developmental aspects of a child's growth to predict that an infant needs a mother more and an older child needs a father more. Developmental research indeed predicts that a child's needs change over time. This only makes sense. An infant is totally dependent on the caretaker for basic nurturance, comfort, and security. These functions depend on attachment and the observational skills and commitment of the caretaker, rather than being gender dependent. Developmental psychology research suggests that the changing needs of the child demand changing behaviors on the caretaker. These functions are not gender specific. A father can soothe a child, and a mother can provide disapproval for dangerous and inappropriate behavior. It is the skill of the parent in matching guidance and nurturance behaviors to the developmental needs of the child that predict success. This again is not gender specific. It is skill specific.
Lastly, Dr. Hansen begs the question when she posits that same-sex parents will increase the sexual confusion of the child they raise. Her argument presumes that sexual orientation is a lifestyle choice made by individuals based upon learning experiences in society. The research does not support this notion. Research clearly indicates that sexual orientation is not learned behavior. Nothing "makes you" gay, other than genetic influences. The research on "sexual re-orientation" comes primarily from prison settings, using aversive conditioning techniques. This research base provides clear results. The reasoning is that learned behavior can be unlearned. Large groups of individuals, mostly men in prison, have undergone research. They are presented with pictures of nude men or boys. They have been connected to plethesmographs that measure engorgement of the penis. As the penis begins to engorge, the research subject is electrically shocked. Repeated pairings of arousal from watching nude males, to subsequent electric shock, eventually results in suppression of the erotic response. However, invariably, within two weeks the erotic response returns. This is not the case with other, truly learned behaviors. Spontaneous reversal of the newly conditioned response rarely is over-ridden without new conditioning experiences: except when the behavior (in this case, sexual arousal) is not learned behavior at all but basic biological processes. We like to think, as advanced humans with high-order cognitive powers, that most of our behavior is choice-based. This gives us a sense of freedom. However, research clearly indicates that much of our behavior is biologically driven. We are not as free as we would like to presume.
The real debate here should focus on what the issue really is about: values. Dr. Hansen values having a male and a female as parents for her child. There is nothing wrong with this belief system. It is what most people believe and value. However, values are about what you want and what you find meaningful in life. There is no "science" to which one should have to submit their values for validation that their values are the correct ones to hold. Rather, this "appeal to authority" logical fallacy represents insecurity and what science is precisely designed to rule out: bias and personal expectation. There is no scientific evidence that same-sex parenting is harmful. Dr. Hansen may disapprove of same-sex parenting as not in her value system, but she should clearly put forth that this is based on her personal preferences and bias (not on the science of psychology she presumably studied to obtain her Ph.D.).
Thomas Marra, Ph.D.
51 Responses to “Psychologist takes on science-free anti-gay psychologist’s article on marriage and children”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Let’s make social policy based entirely on outdated gender role stereotypes!
Because boys are allowed to be sexual, but girls aren’t. No, we worry about our boys committing crimes and our girls having sex.
I think Dr. Hansen is right. Children will be irreparably damaged unless they are reared by both a mother and a father.
Logically, therefore, any children growing up in homes where one parent is absent for any reason (divorce, accidental death, whatever), should be removed from the remaining parent and forced to live with two foster parents, a mother and a father.
This may be a little bothersome to the kids, but, hey, it’s for their own good. Right?
Alternatively, the children should be shipped off and made into sausage, which could then be sold to help fund tax cuts for the rich or something.
I have to admit, it always cracks me up when people start talking about those reasonable, unemotional boys who somehow end up taking stupid risks despite being so reasonable and unemotional.
You’d almost think that teenage boys and teenage girls were equally emotional and unreasonable, but boys are taught that they’re not allowed to express those feelings.
Mnemosyne,
Obviously, you’ve never read Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Street Racing.
I’m not amazed at Dr. Hansen’s piece so much as I am at the robust smack down it received from someone who apparently actually paid attention in their graduate clinical program. Bravo!
As for Dr. Hansen’s opinions, if you’ve ever been around a few average clinical graduate students (in my experience), you wouldn’t find her cut-rate moral frottage shocking.
Par. For. The. Course.
Thankfully there are people like Dr. Marra to speak for all of the above-average clinicians out there.
Obviously, you’ve never read Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Street Racing.
I think I got hung up on Descartes’ Discourse on Skateboarding.
Wholey, Hansen has some messed up values.. god I shudder to think people actually agree with her. Fortunately I don’t know anyone who would yeay!
Yeah, it’s always the *father* that limits the behavior. *rolling eyes*
That’s the common wisdom–that father knows best. But, as I asked my classmates who were parroting such nonsense, what happens when teens ask Dad for permission to do something?
Dad (usually) says either “Ask your Mom” or “If it’s okay with your mother.” So there’s a playacting going on in the family that Dad is in charge, but the actual decision-making is made by Mom.
Even if true, this is bad because??? She doesn’t even finish the thought. Contemplating sexual and marital relationships for one that works for you is bad b/c???
And who cares if you have 4 fathers or six mothers?
These gender enforcers always piss me off. My dad died in a car crash when I was six. My younger retarded brother and I were raised by our mom, who led us both to excel to the best of our abilities.
Because it’s not the lack of a father that affects promiscuity, dropping out, or criminal behavior; it’s the poverty that comes with the lack of a father. Studies that account for SES show single moms *are* good parents.
If Hansen really cared about raising kids, she’d be more concerned with the poverty angle than panty-sniffing.
I will only argue point 5.
Research clearly indicates that sexual orientation is not learned behavior. Nothing “makes you” gay, other than genetic influences.
I don’t think it has been proven that genetic influences are the only determinant of sexual orientation and/or behaviour. Certainly the “if you have gay parents you will end up gay” has been debunked, which is the relevant point anyway.
Has Hansen ever actually met boys and girls?
I guess those savage boys that beat me at school were both reasonable and obeying the rules.
I really hate these “protect the children” arguments. Stopping gay marriage does nothing to protect children from gay parenting. Do you have to be married to raise children? Gays can only get married in one state and yet they can’t seem to take the hint and continue to have and raise children. Keeping gays from marrying does not keep them from raising children. It has only one purpose, to punish gay people for being gay.
Now, if these bigots were honest with us and themselves, they’d be putting forth proposals that would really “protect the children”, such as removing children from gay households and barring gays from teaching and such. Granted, while these things are repulsive, they would be much more effective in “protecting children”. But of course, these bigots don’t want to share their real views with us because they know that the majority would not stand for it and it would expose them all too easily for the real assholes they are.
And the slippery-slope argument is just asinine. Why is it that they can’t seem to realize that the slippery slope starts with the first step (hetero marriage), not the second (gay marriage). If a man and a woman can get married, then why can’t a man and two women, or vice versa? The flood gates were already opened when we allowed government to sanctify hetero marriage. People have been pushing for polygamy much longer than they have been pushing for gay marriage, yet we seem to have withstood it. And we have no problem keeping adults from marrying kids of the opposite sex. Are you telling me that if we allow two adults of the same sex to marry then all of a sudden our reasons for denying these other things just go out the door. There must be some reasons for disallowing these things that have nothing to do with gay marriage because we have been denying these things far longer than anyone has seriously argued for gay marriage. If they are truly afraid of the slippery slope, then government should get out of the marriage business altogether.
Durn, Mnemosyne beat me to it.
But seriously, how does a person write that boys are
a) less emotion-driven
AND
b) more reckless
in *the same sentence* without their heads exploding? I’m really asking — what is the train of “thought” here, that connects recklessness and rationality? How can a person *not* notice that they’re opposites?
Doctor Science,
You don’t really need emotions to be a blithering idiot, so it’s not like recklessness and lack of emotionality are an explicit contradiction… but you’re right that some sort of emotionality is probably responsible for a good deal of reckless behavior we see in teens and especially boys.
Dr Hansen could have titled this “Status Quo for Beginers”.
That said, I am not that convinced that sexual orientation is purely genetic. Mostly because there are gay people out there who have had “hetero” sexual experiences. But for some reason, when someone says “it’s learned”, they innevitably follow it with “so it can be UN-learned”. That I have a problem with. I don’t think it can or SHOULD be UN-learned. But hey, what do I know.
“Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase… sexual experimentation by implying all choices are equally acceptable and desirable”
Anyone else think that’s a good thing?
“When there’s no father to perform this function, a boy is more likely to become delinquent and incarcerated and a girl is more likely to become promiscuous and pregnant.”
AAARGH!! You cannot extrapolate from studies of children raised in broken homes, where the father or mother has LEFT, to assume things about children in same-sex homes where they STILL HAVE two loving parents. It’s the loss of the parent that causes problems, not the non-existence of a mother/father.
“Now, if these bigots were honest with us and themselves, they’d be putting forth proposals that would really “protect the children”, such as removing children from gay households and barring gays from teaching and such. ”
Yeah, they do that too, when they can get away with it.
PS. how do I get quotes to show up in that little grey box?
I do. The only way to become proficient at something is to practice at it. Experience is good, therefore, sexual experimentation is a good because it helps people figure out exactly what they do and don’t want sexually.
It appears that conservatives oppose sexual experimentation because they weren’t permitted to experiment themselves, resulting in sex with them always being bad. They seem to think that people who like sex are “getting away with something” by not having to suffer through the awkward conservative sexual experience.
sorry for the OT, and I don’t know if you know this, but google reports ?some pages? of pandagon as “Badware” sites and will not link to them, even indirectly.
http://www.stopbadware.org/reports/container?reportident=454825&reportname=pandagon.blogsome.com%2F2006%2F
best guess: malware links from spambots
Wow. I’m pretty sure my husband, to say nothing of my late father would be shocked to learn that their love for their children was “conditional-leaning.” I’ve got to say that I was pretty secure in the knowledge that my dad’s love was completely unconditional. I’m pretty sure that’s part of why I’m well-adjusted.
It’s not that I don’t understand what she was trying to say (though I think she’s wrong), but what a horrible way to say it. I don’t care what gender a parent is - the love had better be unconditional and any limit-setting had better not be tied to expressing affection.
I really wish conservatives would listen to themselves on this issue. Don’t they know how little sense they make? Unless they’re advocating taking children from single parents (as ummeli suggests), they’re ridiculous hypocrites.
Of course, if something happens to my husband, it’s going to suck when I have to give up my son too. Do you think I’ll be allowed to get him back if I remarry?
OK, so we don’t know exactly where teh gay comes from, but those who actually study such things are pretty damn sure that it is not learned. Maybe genetics, maybe hormones or other womb environment stuff during fetal development — but NOT learned. By the time you are born, it’s there.
BTW, I was reading bell hooks’ Feminism is for Everybody this week, and the repetition about women “choosing” lesbianism, my brain wanted to explode. WTF? The only justification I could think of, is that she meant it socially, rather than strictly sexually. (Not to mention, the book read more like “A list of everything feminists who are not me have done wrong for the last 40 years,” rather than a book about how great feminism is for everyone.)
Dr. Hansen’s website describes her as a “psychologist, cultural commentator and author”. The only professional info in her bio is that she got a Ph.D. in 1997 from the California School of Professional Psychology.
In other words, she’s trying to be the next Dr. Laura.
“in *the same sentence* without their heads exploding? I’m really asking — what is the train of “thought” here, that connects recklessness and rationality? How can a person *not* notice that they’re opposites? “
I suspect it’s something like “Fear of harm keeps us careful. Fear is an emotion. Boys have no emotion. Boys don’t fear harm. Boys are emotionless and reckless”.
It’s reasonable as far as the process of thought goes, but it hinges on the flawed idea that boys are emotionless. You can usually find a way to resolve the cognitive dissonance of lunatics if you think your way through a ball of sting in your head.
It’s a little tricky to explain and show an example without actually doing it (since the system doesn’t know it’s only supposed to be an example.)
You use the “less than” and “greater than” symbols over the comma and the period. Pretend that the [ symbol stands in for the , and that the text you want to quote is “what Peter said”
So you would type
[blockquote] What Peter said [/blockquote]
Which, if you substitute the , gives you
Like I said, the system deletes the less than and greater than symbols even when you try to use them as an example. But just under the Leave a comment header you can see examples of them.
Let’s see…
< for less than
> for greater than.
& for the ampersand.
This might parse them into symbols anyway. Plus, some systems ignore a greater than symbol on it’s own.
Ooops, left them out: < >
I’m shocked, simply shocked I tell you! Amazed, astonished and a tad disappointed too! No mention of bestiality! None at all! How can you make a rational argument against gay marriage without bringing up human/animal couplings?!?
Dr. marra’s response was great.. however, her statement that there is “no scientific evidence that same sex parenting is harmful” could leave the impression to some (especially those looking for such an interpretation) that it just hasn’t been looked at yet. There is in fact considerable evidence from longitudinal developmental studies of both child cognitive and social-emotional functioning that same-sex parenting does not lead to any deficits whatsoever. So, Dr. Mara is exactly right that this is a values question and Dr. Hansen is free to value any sort of family configuration she desires, but it is important that stands are made when the reason is presented that it is “bad for kids.” Because it simply is not. That’s not opinion or value, that is fact. For a very brief and thorough review of some of the scientific literature I refer to above please check out the American Psychological Association’s policy brief on this very issue:
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html
Hmmm… one wonders if Dr. Hansen is a member of APA and what licensure sanctions in California might accompany an essay with such blatantly false information? One has a right to write whatever they choose, but a licensed member of a professional association has to be a little more careful about giving false professional advice…. just sayin..
I have gotten warnings from my antivirus software that some .exe files were trying to load from some pages on this site. Haven’t seen that in a few weeks, but it happened at least three different times.
Maybe something in an ad?
The problem here is in thinking that there is a hetero/homo dichotomy. Though it is true that research about the biological origins of orientation is somewhat inconclusive, the research into the spectrum of orientation is not. People’s orientation falls along a continuum- you can go as far back as Kinsey in 1948 to see that. That is also the response to the hack Hansen’s “Greco-Roman gayness” argument. In those societies, it was simply ok to express the continuum more fully.
And I agreee with EdgyB- Hansen was sorely negligent in leaving out bestiality. I’m also dismayed by her lack of concern for the rampant human/inanimate object marriages that are sure to occur once same-sex marriage is given the green light. People and sofas- it just ain’t right!!
Dr. Trayce may be trying for the next Dr. Laura slot, but I think it’s just possible that she’s a retrograde conservative.
On her site there’s a link to her Ph.D. thesis that seems to have tried to prove the hypothesis that mothers in incest families are somehow responsible for the Oedipal (she wrote that slip up, not me) fantasy.
to follow up on my comment in number 28…
Here is the link for filing ethics complaints with the California licensing board for Psychologists:
http://www.psychboard.ca.gov/enforce/complaints.html
They have an online submission form and list the criteria for which sanctions may apply.. which includes:
- unprofessional, unethical, or negligent acts
I think the board would be interested to hear that a licensed member is dispensing advice through the media that “All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father.” (Her essay and website are here: http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_samesex.html) when that is in fact the exact opposite of what has been developed in the scientific literature. Anyone has the right to write whatever they want, but a licensed psychologist can not use their professional authority to spread opinion as fact, and it is completely unprofessional/unethical/negligent for an actively licensed psychologist to not be up to date on the current literature before making declarative public statements that are clearly false. This isn’t in the domain of “opinions vary,” this is in the domain of scientific evidence - and she should be allowed to go on being an uneducated pundit, but not a licensed psychologist.
Let’s see…
Though Stacey objected to some of the studies’ methodologies – namely, that sample sizes were (necessarily) too small and that some researchers were operating out of a reflexive desire to prove no difference existed between children of same and opposite-sex parents – she nonetheless came out (no pun intended) in favour of the positive view of homosexual parents.
The American Academy of Pediatrics released a report the following year. In it, researchers concluded there was no difference between homosexual parents and heterosexual parents “in emotional health, parenting skills and attitudes toward parenting.” (As with other scholars, writers at the Academy found themselves hampered by small sample sizes.)
The report went on to state that homosexual couples experienced some of the same child-reading concerns as blended families.
that she’s only retrograde conservative
need my afternoon coffee
Damn it! Here it is again:
So yeah, to make the blockquoting thing clear, you type this:
<blockquote>Stuff you want to quote in the gray box</blockquote>
And it turns into
Trying Peter’s steps.
Let’s see…try #2.
More Judith Stacey. In her book In the Name of the Family she writes:
I love how “father love” is so important that a woman has to be married to a man to have kids, but when it comes to actually putting the effort into raising them, mother love is all you need.
Amanda,
What young lady wants to be the only fatherless girl at the purity ball?
“Father Love” sounds like a gay porn title. And this woman thinks that children should be exposed to “Father Love”? Sick!
I am a recently out (like last night) lesbian… I have been dithering between ‘bisexual/pansexual’ and lesbian for about 4 years.
Like Mary Tracey9 said… I have had heterosexual experiences. Experiences which were largely driven by my fundie-christian upbringing, my ‘need’ for abuse, and letting men have sex with me in order to consummate and validate that abuse.
The one man that genuinely loves me, and I love him? Uh, I just can’t have sex with. Been thinking about it for a long time, and I have decide I may as well give up the idea. Love him to bits, but he is unfortunately waaay to male bodied for me.
Sexual behaviour is learned. I learned that letting a man dominate me sexually is how I am meant to behave, or they will abandon me just like everyone else.
Sexual ATTRACTION, genuine, physical, OMG you make my NIPPLES TINGLE, sexual attraction… well, thats just pure old biology, IMHO.
Just cos I am on a rant now… Why the hell do this damned wing nuts assume that you must be fucked up if you are gay? If they looked at my history, they would say “Oh, she’s a lesbian feminist man-hating wench cos she was abused for so long” when in fact the only reason I monkeyed heterosexual behaviour at all was to fit in, be accepted and *because* of the abuse and fear that drove my life.
Now that I am healing, I am out, and going to *gasp* gay bars, and flirting with girls, and generally much healthier. I’m not even depressed anymore.
Also, I expect I’ll like men much better now I have a firm boundary that says ‘off-limits’ rather than not knowing how to refuse them when they (inevetably) come on to me.
What I find unusual is that the few adult children of gay parents that I know are ALL heterosexual. Now, it is a rather small sample (about 5 or 6 depending on the definition of old enough to know) and that won’t continue to be the case BUT, every last gay person I know was raised by parents who identified as heterosexual.
By the magic of WingnutLogic(tm), only gay parents should parent because all their kids are straight. QED, run rings around you logically, etc.
Nothing “makes you” gay, other than genetic influences.
It would be vastly more scientifically precise to use the term “genetic and epigenetic influences”. “Epigenetic” meaning all the stuff that governs and regulates gene expression in response to internal and external environmental cues.
Hansen assumes the following:
…Fathers spend time with their kids.
…They do some parenting during that time.
What a dear little thought. I wonder where she got it from. Dickens? The Waltons?
…Mothers are the best caregivers for a small child.
Because they get more practice.
…Mothers can’t adequately restrain older children.
This woman has clearly never seen a Russian mother in full swing.
…Fathers can.
Presumably by means other than violence or bullying. But what other means of restraint are there that cannot be applied by women?
…Having a parent of the opposite sex shows you the value of that opposite sex.
So boys need to see their mothers in a positive light. Right? Perhaps we need to penalise sexist fathers? Or sexism, period?
I’d respect those arguments if they were applied to everyone. Parental leave for fathers once their kids are teenagers. Heavy fines for men who leave their families (to help pay for therapy). Companies forced to be family-friendly — free health insurance, free nurseries, flexitime, plenty of days off when your kid needs you. A kind of driver’s licence for men, with the levels of sexism and irresponsibility routinely tested. Unlicensed sex would be fined. Imagine the extra revenue that would generate.
But no: it applies only to gays. Funny.
Her last sentence in particular. It’s a study in falling flat on one’s face. Gosh, so “those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers”? As opposed to, say, children from heterosexual families where Mum is Dad’s third wife, the marriage fails and both remarry?
Hansen assumes the following:
…Fathers spend time with their kids.
…They do some parenting during that time.
What a dear little thought. I wonder where she got it from. Dickens? The Waltons?
…Mothers are the best caregivers for a small child.
Because they get more practice.
…Mothers can’t adequately restrain older children.
This woman has clearly never seen a Russian mother in full swing.
…Fathers can.
Presumably by means other than violence or bullying. But what other means of restraint are there that cannot be applied by women?
…Having a parent of the opposite sex shows you the value of that opposite sex.
So boys need to see their mothers in a positive light. Right? Perhaps we need to penalise sexist fathers? Or sexism, period?
I’d respect those arguments if they were applied to everyone. Parental leave for fathers once their kids are teenagers. Heavy fines for men who leave their families (to help pay for therapy). Companies forced to be family-friendly — free health insurance, free nurseries, flexitime, plenty of days off when your kid needs you. A kind of driver’s licence for men, with the levels of sexism and irresponsibility routinely tested. Unlicensed sex would be fined. Imagine the extra revenue that would generate.
But no: it applies only to gays. Funny.
Her last sentence in particular. It’s a study in falling flat on one’s face. Gosh, so “those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers”? As opposed to, say, children from heterosexual families where Mum is Dad’s third wife, the marriage fails and both remarry?
Hansen assumes the following:
…Fathers spend time with their kids.
…They do some parenting during that time.
What a dear little thought. I wonder where she got it from. Dickens? The Waltons?
…Mothers are the best caregivers for a small child.
Because they get more practice.
…Mothers can’t adequately restrain older children.
This woman has clearly never seen a Russian mother in full swing.
…Fathers can.
Presumably by means other than violence or bullying. But what other means of restraint are there that cannot be applied by women?
…Having a parent of the opposite sex shows you the value of that opposite sex.
So boys need to see their mothers in a positive light. Right? Perhaps we need to penalise sexist fathers? Or sexism, period?
I’d respect those arguments if they were applied to everyone. Parental leave for fathers once their kids are teenagers. Heavy fines for men who leave their families (to help pay for therapy). Companies forced to be family-friendly — free health insurance, free nurseries, flexitime, plenty of days off when your kid needs you. A kind of driver’s licence for men, with the levels of sexism and irresponsibility routinely tested. Unlicensed sex would be fined. Imagine the extra revenue that would generate.
But no: it applies only to gays. Funny.
Her last sentence in particular. It’s a study in falling flat on one’s face. Gosh, so “those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers”? As opposed to, say, children from heterosexual families where Mum is Dad’s third wife, the marriage fails and both remarry?
Some of this argument is really simple:
Planned families are often more stable and happy than unplanned families. Gays and lesbians usually have to plan their families since their relationships won’t usually result in unplanned pregnancies.
The debate about whether teh gay is learned or inherited, or how much this or that, is one we should not be having (except as an academic pursuit). Suppose, just for the moment, that we have a gay family in which both of the partners LEARNED to be gay, fully consciously adopted it as a “lifestyle.” And further suppose that these partners married and raised children and they TURNED all of their children gay. What the hell would it matter?
In other words, if gay is not bad, then how can a conscious choice to be gay (if such a thing were possible — I’m simply entertaining a hypothesis here) be bad?
There’s a disturbing undercurrent sometimes that IF being gay were a real choice, or something you could “turn” others to, it would then be evil, or at least an inferior option. I can’t see why.
Whoa. Sorry for the triple posting.