[Study] Children in Lesbian Families Less Likely to be Abused by Parent

My guess is lesbian parents are probably better than single mothers. Doesn't make it ideal.

 

My own research has suggested a more specific result: children in lesbian families are less likely to be abused by a male parent.

 

What proof is there that you NEED both male and female parents? What do you need them for?

 

I just don't think 78 kids (and perhaps fewer families) is a big enough sampling. I agree with the logic behind it though, such as:
The investigators note that most of the NLLFS adolescents did not grow up in households with any adult males present. Since "sexual abuse of children that occurs within the home is largely perpetrated by adult heterosexual males," this could be one reason for the difference in findings.

I also find the following part to be extremely important and totally underrated itt:
The analysis also found that although almost 20% of the NLLFS girls reported identifying as bisexual and were more likely to have engaged in same-sex activity than female peers, none of them identified as predominantly homosexual.

 

Wow. About the same time period where Alec Baldwin's phone call to his daughter is considered 'Abuse'.

The word ABUSE seems to have replaced the word DISCIPLINE
we started calling everything ABUSE
now we wonder why we have some of the most undisciplined kids in the world

Rocket River

 

Of course you don't. I mean, if we're going to argue that potential social ramifications in the child are cause for limiting one's ability to be a parent I really don't think anyone would pass the test. It's just bigotry that enables it to be used in this regard while ignoring the rank hypocrisy inherent to the position.

 

Do you have any facts that back up this claim? Crime is at its lowest rate in over 40 years.

 

You probably dont NEED both male and female parents. In nature primates (apes etc) are raised by a coven of females with very little input from males. In terms of being socialized into society males obviously benefit greatly from a male role model that operates as the authority figure like the silverback in the troop, but it could be anyone: a coach, priest, Obama, Michael Jordan whatever, as opposed specifically to your dad.

Keep in mind that you dont NEED a parent at all. There are millions of kids raised through orphanages or foster homes around the world who turn out fine.

However, there are clear benefits to having both mom and dad. Not only for the kids but for the parents as well to share duties and cover the traditional parenting roles... which is a social dynamic that has developed over tens of thousands of years of human socialization. Male and female roles are not arbitrary. The reason every human society has it is because there are dividends both for raising kids and for the structure of society. Is it ESSENTIAL? Especially in a society like the US with a huge economic and social net for everyone? No. It's not like your kid is going to be an axe murder or rapist because his dad wasn't around. But if you want the best for your kid, there are things a father gives to your kid that a mom or mom's butch lifepartner wont bring. Obviously it doesn't mean that having 2 lesbian parents precludes having a male authority figure... maybe the adoption agency they got the kid from can also rent out father figures for weekends. People are smart, and they generally want the best for their kids, they'll figure it out.

The study though.. lol. Do any of you all actually believe that good parenting could break down by lifestyle or ethnic group? Like some parents are better parents simply by virtue of who they are (sexual orientation, race, or religion etc)?

The logical corrollary to the belief that some people by virtue of who they are, could as a group be better parents in some area, is the bigoted belief that other people by virtue of who they are could be worse. It's very sketchy when people try to use sociological studies as political currency. I mean would a study that shows black males are more likely to abandon their kids and thus less fit potential fathers or husbands seen credible or racist to you? Or a study that says Indians are less likely to get divorced ergo better parents than caucasians racist or credible? These studies are funny as ****, I can't wait till a counterstudy comes out that says "Conclusive among 50 lesbian couples, there was a determination that lesbian households result in less corporal punishment and more passive aggressive mental anguish." Do you all not realize by now that any PAC or agendaed researcher can put out a study that says anything? Being linked in the media does not mean something was peer reviewed or substantiated.

A study that says lesbians (or blacks, or asians or jews) are worse as a group is probably homophobic (or racist or bigoted or anti semitic). But a study that says lesbians are superior as a group is... credible? You either believe behavior, temperment and ability comes down to your demographic grouping or you dont. It's hard to cherry pick core values. It's funny when people are willing to believe as factual something that otherwise goes against their core beliefs based solely on their affinity or sympathy to a particular group.

 

and your proof of dicipline is crime statistics, either your diciplined or you're a criminal

 

I don't think this is what he is referring to, but if it is, keep in mind the US has the highest crime rate among developed nations by far I think.

 

According to one poster on this board, the proof is that people raised without a father end up pansy divas like Lebron and Vince Young.

 

First, thanks for the excellent post. You will be repped shortly.

Second, I was asking for a deeper answer. What exactly does, for example, a male parent bring to the table that a female parent could not? What is special about the socially accepted parenting roles? Two identical kids, with identical mothers, and one of them with an average father, the other without... You're saying the kid with the father has some kind of leg up?

I don't think the ape thing is relevant at all, but that may just be my lack of knowledge. Why do I care how apes raise their kids if I don't want to raise an ape and the social dynamics of being an ape and being a human are so different?

If you have a male and female parent, and they completely switch "roles" immediately after the birth of the child, what then? Can't the female be the "silverback"? Can't the male effectively be a mother?

 

I haven't seen statistics that we have the most undisciplined kids in the world or that our kids are less disciplined than at any other time in our history. I'm sure I can find some statistics that show kids that experience violence as a child are more likely to be violent as an adult.

 

With results this dramatic, a sample of 78 is pretty big (that doesn't say anything about bias in the sample, of course).

0/78 is very different from 26%. If you were to assume that children in lesbian households are as likely to be abused as other kids, you'd expect to see results this dramatic only about 0.00000001262% of the time.

 

aaaahhhhh, the "It's not true unless you get some labcoat to co-sign it defense"

I am sure I can scoop up a few.
But we talking about more school violence, less performances in these schools, etc
everyday . . .
alot of it is directly related to the fact that kids now have more power over their households than parents. Too many parents attempt to befriend their kids.

BTW, GET THE HELL OFF MY LAWN!!!

Rocket River

 

Its not a defense. However, you don't have a labcoat to co-sign it, then its just your opinion and it isn't any more valid than Sarah Palin's comments about the world.

 

If the let's not spank our kids crap being spewed was working . . .would these statistic not be reversed?

http://charactercounts.org/resources/youthviolence/rskstats.html

Rocket River
Dr Spock was full of crap

 

aaaahhhhh, the old RR "Anything that's said by an expert shouldn't be trusted because their facts are no better than my biased opinions" argument.

Why would these statistics be reversed? The first three say that things haven't gotten better since the 1990's. That's not the same as your argument that they have gotten worse because of poor discipline. The fourth statistic is fairly useless without any historical numbers for comparison.

 

I was saying boys raised without a father are not as WELL ADJUSTED as boys who would have their father around. Its not just being pansy, its also the other end of the spectrum of having over HARDENED men (especially an absentee father IN JAIL, thats a recipe for disaster)


http://inkarcerated.intrasun.tcnj.edu/womeninprison/statistics.html

I also mentioned the stereotypical girl-turned-desperate-stripper with daddy issues. I'm just using prevailing opinions out there. And sadly, am using personal examples...

 

"Patriarchy".

Every
Single
Time

Since patriarchy has led to all the evils in the world, or everything bad thats has happened was under male dominated rule, it is men who are accountable for making things the way that they are. So if we agree that everything is bad, then we agree its men who made it that way! Simple as that. True or not, its just another angle to explain that same point.