Gender Roles: Even More Spin-Off

[LeftEyeNine]

Gay parenting thread, for me, has been a mine of question marks; now after some certain statements in the article presented by PJ was extracted as a matter of dispute by Rhyfelwyr and Sasaki Kojiro respectively.

Do gender roles mean anything to you ? Should they ? If they are fading for the better of humanitarian actions (not humanity as it would involve procreation, hence being rendered impossible to debate), let it be ?

Is there anything wrong with retreated, less aggressive and sexually contained/avoiding boys, for example ? Are gender roles the next antiques to dump ?

[PanzerJaeger]

I think that gender roles are repressive when they are enforced and not allowed to emerge naturally. Not every boy is hyper aggressive and not every girl aspires to be in pageants. Forcing children to adopt these roles can and does cause later psychological issues.

Girls, especially, are at a great disadvantage if they are socially conditioned to aspire only to find and serve a husband. The article mentioned that those that were raised in lesbian households with little emphasis placed on gender roles were more likely to aspire to higher professions and achieve greater things in their lives.

That's not to say that parents shouldn't encourage certain activities, but a child should be allowed to develop his or her own personality and interests free of familial and social pressures.

[HoreTore]

I believe I am perfectly capable of defining my own role in society without the "help" of society.

The notion that someone should behave like X because they were born as X is an outdated concept of the nobility, something that should've been gone with Louis XVI's head in the revolution.

I am born a free man, and how I live my life is for me to choose.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that roles are unhelpful. What is required is a more general understanding that males and females as a cohort tend to like doing different things, have different goals and prefer different careers. It does not mean there are not exceptionally good house fathers, or female physics scientists - but as a broad brush there is a higher percentage of women in primary school teaching than in surgery. It does not mean it's "bad" that women like different things to men, but to accept it - and ensure that this is due to choice and not due to artificial boundaries.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

Your comment on women in primary schools really stings, man....

[Louis VI the Fat]

Your comment on women in primary schools really stings, man....Just doing his bit to keep you girls in your place. :whip:

[Fisherking]

Your comment on women in primary schools really stings, man....

Well perhaps if we examine motives?

Women tend to be a bit more nurturing than men.

Or perhaps you are interested in socializing the children in a way more to your liking. Are you after hears and minds?

[drone]

It's still not OK for a man to cry.

[HoreTore]

Oh wait. According to wikipedia, british primary school lasts until 11 years old. I teach 12-year olds.... Carry on then.

[Strike For The South]

Oh wait. According to wikipedia, british primary school lasts until 11 years old. I teach 12-year olds.... Carry on then.

So your only slighty effeminate?

Shouldn't you be mining a fjord for gold or slaying MILFs at a ski resort?

[HoreTore]

So your only slighty effeminate?

Shouldn't you be mining a fjord for gold or slaying MILFs at a ski resort?

Bah, 11 to 13 year olds are simply the best; old enough to use abstracts, but still so young that hrmones haven't taken them over completely.

Anyway.

The way most people think of teacher status is that the higher the grade, the tougher the challenge. In reality, however, its the other way around: teaching first graders is a heck of a lot more challenging and requires much more knowledge than teaching 15-year olds. As well as being much more important, of course.

[Strike For The South]

Whatever helps you sleep at night

[Rhyfelwyr]

I am born a free man, and how I live my life is for me to choose.

The thing is you weren't born a free man, you were born a child that was very much influenced by his surroudings. And they had a big impact on who you are today. Same for me, same for everyone.

99% of boys and girls grow up to fulfil pretty stereotypical gender roles. As PJ's article showed, this isn't the case with children being raised by homosexuals.

These gender roles form much of the basis of society. Without understanding them, these children are going to have a hard time adapting.

I feel really sorry for the boy that turns out the way they described them in PJ's article, it's not fair to them to let them get like that.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The thing is you weren't born a free man, you were born a child that was very much influenced by his surroudings. And they had a big impact on who you are today. Same for me, same for everyone.

99% of boys and girls grow up to fulfil pretty stereotypical gender roles.

Yes, like the boys and girls in MRD's afghanistan thread. Is that what you want?



These gender roles form much of the basis of society. Without understanding them, these children are going to have a hard time adapting.

If they formed the basis of the society, society would have been collapsing for 100 years! Society is perfectly capable of handling change. Pink was once a mainly masculine color and blue was once a mainly feminine color. Now we've swapped it. You're ignoring the large arbitrary aspect, not to mention the negative side.



I feel really sorry for the boy that turns out the way they described them in PJ's article, it's not fair to them to let them get like that.

Are you sorry for yourself then? Try judging yourself by the masculine roles of ages past...

Also, you have to understand that when they talk about aggression in psychology they are referring to physical violence. aka, boys raised to be less aggressive are less likely to beat their wives. They aren't talking about assertiveness, or aggressiveness in the way we often use the word, I think the psychology use of the word is kind of dumb but it is what it is.

[Strike For The South]

I like kittens

Does this make me not a traditonal man?

A lifiting partner likes to suck dicks but he would probably beat the hell out of you

Who is the traditonal man?

These "traditonal roles" have been vicously challenged time and time again throught human history

Ho bloody hum

[a completely inoffensive name]

Traditional gender roles are there because they are the most natural and thus the best suited for each gender.

I can't believe we are having this argument. :laugh4:

[Rhyfelwyr]

There's only so much projectionism I can take...

Why you took my post as suggesting men should be wife-beaters I have no idea, anyway...

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in this field, however this topic came up at a Uni class last term and from what I gather the 'environment-is-everything-and-prone-to-change' take might make you sound intellectual and what not, but it has in fact been discredited and has went out of fashion gradually since its heyday a few decades ago.

Nature v nurture again.

Boys should be more aggressive/assertive since its just the way they tend to be, if lesbians are raising them to act like their balls have been chopped off then somethings wrong somewhere...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

There's only so much projectionism I can take...

Why you took my post as suggesting men should be wife-beaters I have no idea, anyway...

I'm sorry rhyf, I really didn't. I meant the opposite, I pointed out that they use it differently because I thought you weren't using it that way. What pj's study found was that the boys were less aggressive in the less likely to be wife-beaters way. You have no objection to that.



I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in this field, however this topic came up at a Uni class last term and from what I gather the 'environment-is-everything-and-prone-to-change' take might make you sound intellectual and what not, but it has in fact been discredited and has went out of fashion gradually since its heyday a few decades ago.

There certainly are innate sex differences. But they are systematically exaggerated and not very interesting or significant. People who have an axe to grind talk more about the blank slate view being discredited than about the actual findings on differences :book:


Boys should be more aggressive/assertive since its just the way they tend to be, if lesbians are raising them to act like their balls have been chopped off then somethings wrong somewhere...

No, that's why I pointed out the psychological use of aggression. Lesbians are raising them to be less violent. Not less assertive.

"In psychology, as well as other social and behavioral sciences, aggression (also called combativeness) refers to behavior between members of the same species that is intended to cause pain or harm."

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm sorry rhyf, I really didn't. I meant the opposite, I pointed out that they use it differently because I thought you weren't using it that way. What pj's study found was that the boys were less aggressive in the less likely to be wife-beaters way. You have no objection to that.

In that case, apologies, it's confusing when psychologists use a different definition of a word than everyone else does.


There certainly are innate sex differences. But they are systematically exaggerated and not very interesting or significant. People who have an axe to grind talk more about the blank slate view being discredited than about the actual findings on differences :book:

Your last observation does not sound very scientific. :tongue2:

Don't you think the strength differences between men and women (in general) are significant?


No, that's why I pointed out the psychological use of aggression. Lesbians are raising them to be less violent. Not less assertive.

"In psychology, as well as other social and behavioral sciences, aggression (also called combativeness) refers to behavior between members of the same species that is intended to cause pain or harm."

Even still, the combination of factors mentioned really just makes those boys sound unhealthy. I mean, I'm sexually repressed, but that's because I'm a relinutjob as Frags would say, these boys sound like they've been made eunuchs...

I just think its funny how some posters (not you Sasaki) have started throwing around words like traditional, natural, macho etc and projected them onto my arguments.

Anyway, I like kittens, even if I prefer dogs. In fact I even take insects out the house instead of killing them, what did they do to me? :/

[Sasaki Kojiro]

In that case, apologies, it's confusing when psychologists use a different definition of a word than everyone else does.

Yes, I think it's dumb. I recall an article where the lack of women in philosophy classes was being discussed, and the author suggested it was because women were less aggressive. But of course violence doesn't take place in philosophical debate...




Your last observation does not sound very scientific. :tongue2:

It is :beam:


Don't you think the strength differences between men and women (in general) are significant?

Statistically. But I'm not sure how you would approach the question of whether it's in general significant. What does that mean? But it's not a gender role thing anyway, so.




Even still, the combination of factors mentioned really just makes those boys sound unhealthy. I mean, I'm sexually repressed, but that's because I'm a relinutjob as Frags would say, these boys sound like they've been made eunuchs...

Not really, it sounds like a good description of what they call "well bred". Which probably goes hand in hand with the higher economic status of lesbian adopted families.



Anyway, I like kittens, even if I prefer dogs. In fact I even take insects out the house instead of killing them, what did they do to me? :/

And that doesn't make you a eunuch...

[PanzerJaeger]

These gender roles form much of the basis of society. Without understanding them, these children are going to have a hard time adapting.



I think you are misinterpreting the study.

It did not say that the children did not understand gender roles, only that they were less likely to adhere to them in certain ways. It then went on to conclude that the children were as well adjusted as their peers with straight parents. The researchers saw this as a good thing - that the children adopted the roles that naturally came to them instead of conforming to roles that were expected of them.

One does not have to adhere to specific gender roles to understand them and how to function in a society where they exist.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Statistically. But I'm not sure how you would approach the question of whether it's in general significant. What does that mean? But it's not a gender role thing anyway, so.

How can such a striking difference not be significant? Women would struggle in a lot of jobs in heavy industry, for example.

Plus it is very much tied to gender roles, we aren't the ancient Greeks, the body and the mind are connected, and the influence isn't all from the latter to the former.

There are also documented mental differences. Women having better spacial awareness is one. Men are also more prone to things like aspergers, it's been dubbed 'extreme male brain' by some, I'm a bit like that myself. These things have a big impact on personality etc.


Not really, it sounds like a good description of what they call "well bred". Which probably goes hand in hand with the higher economic status of lesbian adopted families.

I'm skeptical, especially when they found the impact on girls raised by lesbians was the opposite of what would considered to be making them "well bred".


And that doesn't make you a eunuch...

Not any more than not beating your wive makes you a eunuch. If people don't attack me I'm not going to attack them.

[Beskar]

That's not to say that parents shouldn't encourage certain activities, but a child should be allowed to develop his or her own personality and interests free of familial and social pressures.

Agreed. Gender roles are social constructs enforced by society. The parents buy their daughter the Kitchen set and then buy their Son the action man and the kids are at that age where the only reason they do these is because their parents and what they are forced into by society.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It did not say that the children did not understand gender roles, only that they were less likely to adhere to them in certain ways. It then went on to conclude that the children were as well adjusted as their peers with straight parents. The researchers saw this as a good thing - that the children adopted the roles that naturally came to them instead of conforming to roles that were expected of them.

First off, what they consider to be "well adjusted" is subjective, and shows I'm not the only one with preconceived notions of how children should develop. What exactly do they mean by well adjusted anyway?

Also, you seem to imply that heterosexual parents influence their children to become a certain way, whereas homosexual ones would somehow not exert an influence, but rather let the children develop "naturally" (funny how it's not me that actually uses that word).

Is there a reason why you think this would be the case?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Agreed. Gender roles are social constructs enforced by society. The parents buy their daughter the Kitchen set and then buy their Son the action man and the kids are at that age where the only reason they do these is because their parents and what they are forced into by society.

I feel like I've been blasted into the 60's with this sociocultural analysis.

[HoreTore]

I feel like I've been blasted into the 60's with this sociocultural analysis.

.....and yet you yourself adhere to a functionalistic explanation, which was a thing of the 60's as well. 1860's, that is...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

How can such a striking difference not be significant? Women would struggle in a lot of jobs in heavy industry, for example.

So it's significant for heavy industry. But I still don't know what "in general" means here. I would guess that you're trying for some carry over effect--as in, the strength differences mean that we can say that men and women are significantly different, and so then in some other area not related to strength, we can say that they are different as well.


Plus it is very much tied to gender roles, we aren't the ancient Greeks, the body and the mind are connected, and the influence isn't all from the latter to the former.

Well you're last three statements are clearly true...


There are also documented mental differences. Women having better spacial awareness is one. Men are also more prone to things like aspergers, it's been dubbed 'extreme male brain' by some, I'm a bit like that myself. These things have a big impact on personality etc.


Simon baron cohen's research is terrible, like much research on sex differences. Like the research where they ask for self report on empathy and then take that as revealing of sex differences ~:rolleyes:



I'm skeptical, especially when they found the impact on girls raised by lesbians was the opposite of what would considered to be making them "well bred".


:inquisitive: but those traits for boys are what they are. Regardless of whether girls raised by lesbians are less likely to be devoutly christian (remember it's difference in averages).

[Beskar]

I feel like I've been blasted into the 60's with this sociocultural analysis.

I do possess a Masters in Social Psychology which I only went into because I have a very social view of Identity, mainly because my studies in general Psychology (BSc) generally pointed me in that direction. There is a lot of neurological evidence supporting this line of thought as well, such as promising research in Mirror Neuron's. But that is enough of this digression.

[Centurion1]

i played with my easy bake until i was like 13, 2 of my favorite channels are the food channel and hgtv, my favorite store is williams sonoma, and i enjoy going to the ballet. my dad also enrolled me in boxing when i was 9, i played 4 yrs of varsity american football, im a bit of a masochist, and i want to join the army and am on a contracted path to doing so. i would like to imagine im pretty normal overall and a fine specimen of a man.

my father was born in the 1950's he does the laundry and the cooking. he was also a navy pilot for twenty years and still talks about the red threat.

gender roles are stupid and unnecessary. a boy is aggressive (which i am) whether he likes to play with a kitchen set or a bike. now are men naturally more aggressive than girls and less nurturing? probably too an extent but its hard to say how much environment has an effect there. my parents mostly bought me toys tailored to boys anyway.

i concur with drone though. boys should never cry unless for extreme circumstances. boys who cry in fact children who cry in general make me ill. stoicism ftw.

[Beskar]

:inquisitive: but those traits for boys are what they are. Regardless of whether girls raised by lesbians are less likely to be devoutly christian (remember it's difference in averages).

But the fact Lesbians are less likely to be Christian (as they burn in the pits of hell), it is a clear demonstration of the social influences making an impact on the child.

[Rhyfelwyr]

.....and yet you yourself adhere to a functionalistic explanation, which was a thing of the 60's as well. 1860's, that is...

I believe the most up to date and sensible viewpoint is to admit that both biology and sociocultural aspects play their role, and probably reinforce each other.



So it's significant for heavy industry. But I still don't know what "in general" means here. I would guess that you're trying for some carry over effect--as in, the strength differences mean that we can say that men and women are significantly different, and so then in some other area not related to strength, we can say that they are different as well.

When I said "in general", I meant men are on the whole stronger than women. As in as a group, but not always on an individual basis.


Well you're last three statements are clearly true...

Yes.


Simon baron cohen's research is terrible, like much research on sex differences. Like the research where they ask for self report on empathy and then take that as revealing of sex differences ~:rolleyes:

Self reports are actually very revealing, you made this same argument in a Frontroom thread recently, you don't have to be so rigid when it comes to these things, the real test isn't always in the question itself.

Plus, now who is dismissing scientific research? That males display more aspergers like charactertics would have been obvious without providing evidence, but when I do provided respected research, its "terrible" and just dismissed?


:inquisitive: but those traits for boys are what they are. Regardless of whether girls raised by lesbians are less likely to be devoutly christian (remember it's difference in averages).

Well you've made the case that what I said was due to the influence of homosexual parents was infact due to the fact that homosexual parents happen to be better off. An issue of causation.

So when I show that homosexual parents have the opposite effect on girls associated with being brought up by parents that are well off, you dismiss it? If the parents homosexuality is a factor with the girls they raise, I think it is highly likely it will also influence the boys, and shows that the studies finding were not just due to a the conflation of homosexual/well off parents.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

When I said "in general", I meant men are on the whole stronger than women. As in as a group, but not always on an individual basis.


So you just meant statistically significant, ok.



Self reports are actually very revealing, you made this same argument in a Frontroom thread recently, you don't have to be so rigid when it comes to these things, the real test isn't always in the question itself.

Tests of self report have women as much more empathetic. Tests of physiological reactions show women as very slight more. Tests of helping behavior show that men are more likely to help.

Self report in gender studies leads to people saying they are like their gender role. If you quiz men and ask them if they are strong, brave, etc they will say yes. But we already know that, it isn't very revealing. What would actually be revealing would be if there was a large difference in empathy.


Plus, now who is dismissing scientific research? That males display more aspergers like charactertics would have been obvious without providing evidence, but when I do provided respected research, its "terrible" and just dismissed?


I'm not dismissing it, I have read about it and it's bad for several reasons which I can't recall at this time, he used questionable measures or something like that. I am completely fine with you criticizing scientific research, I have said that it's mostly bad when it comes to gender research. The default assumption should be that it's bad. You can only conclude that it's good after reading about it in more detail. This isn't an argument for the common sense view, since our own judgments about gender differences are bad too.


Well you've made the case that what I said was due to the influence of homosexual parents was infact due to the fact that homosexual parents happen to be better off. An issue of causation.

So when I show that homosexual parents have the opposite effect on girls associated with being brought up by parents that are well off, you dismiss it? If the parents homosexuality is a factor with the girls they raise, I think it is highly likely it will also influence the boys, and shows that the studies finding were not just due to a the conflation of homosexual/well off parents.

I don't think they were. But you understand that when we talk about differences here we are comparing two averages. So simply not being poor and not being conservative (--> the effect on girls that you mentioned) distorts the average. You would have to compare it to another similar demographic group, and look at the differences, to see if there was a difference purely from the same sex parents factor.

My position is a skeptical one.

[Megas Methuselah]

It's still not OK for a man to cry.

I cry in private.

[Ironside]

It's still not OK for a man to cry.

That's extremely cultural and has varied through the ages. One of the really big ones, when it comes to gender roles (that applies to more emotions as well).

And for some manly tears I offer warning can cost too much time, TVtropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TearJerker)

And then we have this for some cheering up after digging around on the former link. The ending in particular.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZKWs7VA0lU&feature=related




When I said "in general", I meant men are on the whole stronger than women. As in as a group, but not always on an individual basis.


So... If a female can handle the burden of this heavy lifting job, should she take it or not? If she wants to of course.
See that's the thing about roles. The gender differs, but even the largest differense (physical strength) overlap. So if you say that girls do that and boys do that, it will never fully fit on either group. Are those who doesn't fit supposed to conform or not?

[Crazed Rabbit]

I feel really sorry for the boy that turns out the way they described them in PJ's article, it's not fair to them to let them get like that.

What do you mean? Not fair they are less sexually assertive – and therefore more proper in terms of not having sex as often?


Traditional gender roles are there because they are the most natural and thus the best suited for each gender.

They’re the most natural? Based on what? - roles have changed over time, and are different now throughout the planet. Does what is ‘natural’ change? If so, how can what is natural now be any better than what was natural before? And what country/region/culture should be used as the basis for ‘natural’?

It seems likely to me traditional roles are the result of culture where the child is raised. Is the traditional role of women in Saudi Arabia more natural than the role of women in the USA?

Why would traditional gender roles be the best anyway? Human history is a litany of ignorance of science, cultures, math, astronomy, engineering, anatomy, psychology, etc. The traditions of the past were based on foundations of ignorance; what besides being around first gives them credence?


I'm skeptical, especially when they found the impact on girls raised by lesbians was the opposite of what would considered to be making them "well bred".

Well bred used to mean women only spoke when spoken to and weren’t supposed to go to college. It seems rather that your issue is the children raised by gay couples are less likely to conform to what you view as the proper role and personality for men and women in society.

CR

[Rhyfelwyr]

So... If a female can handle the burden of this heavy lifting job, should she take it or not? If she wants to of course.
See that's the thing about roles. The gender differs, but even the largest differense (physical strength) overlap. So if you say that girls do that and boys do that, it will never fully fit on either group. Are those who doesn't fit supposed to conform or not?

For the exceptions they can do their own thing, however you raise children expecting them to be a certain way so you go with the way biology has most likely intended.


What do you mean? Not fair they are less sexually assertive – and therefore more proper in terms of not having sex as often?

Depends why they're not having sex. Is it because they are abstaining or as I said earlier because they sound like they have actually been castrated. What part of the description of those boys raised by lesbians sounded healthy? Do you want your kids to be like that? Would you like to have been/be like that?

Do you think you are the way you are now purely because of the way you were raised*, or is it something deeper than that?


Well bred used to mean women only spoke when spoken to and weren’t supposed to go to college. It seems rather that your issue is the children raised by gay couples are less likely to conform to what you view as the proper role and personality for men and women in society.

Well yes. PJ treated it like having homosexual parents somehow liberates children from the influence of heterosexual ones and allows them to develop more "naturally". This is silly, children develop the way they do just as much if not more due to biology than their upbringing. They will live like a standard heterosexual couple when they are older, so they need to learn those values, not be messed up.

* funny how its all cultural when it comes to gender roles, but its all biology when it comes to homosexuality, whatever suits wins it seems

[Crazed Rabbit]

For the exceptions they can do their own thing, however you raise children expecting them to be a certain way so you go with the way biology has most likely intended.

I doubt very much biology has much impact on how parents decide to raise their children. An individual child's biology will of course have a large impact on the child, but not the parenting.


Depends why they're not having sex. Is it because they are abstaining or as I said earlier because they sound like they have actually been castrated. What part of the description of those boys raised by lesbians sounded healthy? Do you want your kids to be like that? Would you like to have been/be like that?

Castrated? That sounds like how the pilgrims - and many (most) other groups in America raised kids.

Given what I've seen of frat guys and certain examples of sexual assertiveness (discounting violence and focusing just on how some men focus of getting laid without respect or caring for the women) I wouldn't have a problem with less sexually assertive men.


Do you think you are the way you are now purely because of the way you were raised*, or is it something deeper than that?

Both.


Well yes. PJ treated it like having homosexual parents somehow liberates children from the influence of heterosexual ones and allows them to develop more "naturally". This is silly, children develop the way they do just as much if not more due to biology than their upbringing. They will live like a standard heterosexual couple when they are older, so they need to learn those values, not be messed up.

So children raised by homosexuals will have messed up values, and unable to live like 'standard heterosexuals'?

Perhaps you could elaborate. I don't see what values children raised by homosexuals would have that would mess them up when they are older. Somewhat different, certainly, but that's not at all the same. Everyone is somewhat different in a way, and what you consider messed up values may be the norm in certain areas where people get along just fine.

CR

[ajaxfetish]

Traditional gender roles are there because they are the most natural and thus the best suited for each gender.


They’re the most natural? Based on what? - roles have changed over time, and are different now throughout the planet. Does what is ‘natural’ change? If so, how can what is natural now be any better than what was natural before? And what country/region/culture should be used as the basis for ‘natural’?

It seems likely to me traditional roles are the result of culture where the child is raised. Is the traditional role of women in Saudi Arabia more natural than the role of women in the USA?

Why would traditional gender roles be the best anyway? Human history is a litany of ignorance of science, cultures, math, astronomy, engineering, anatomy, psychology, etc. The traditions of the past were based on foundations of ignorance; what besides being around first gives them credence?
ACIN was being ironical. His joke is based on the gay parenting thread.

Ajax

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ah, I see. In that case, carry on.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

If I wanted to continue the joke this is where I would insert more laughing emoticons (AKA the Tribesman method) and call everyone here absurd for trying to strip away the rights of children.

[PanzerJaeger]

First off, what they consider to be "well adjusted" is subjective, and shows I'm not the only one with preconceived notions of how children should develop. What exactly do they mean by well adjusted anyway?

You're missing the point.

Whether they define 'well adjusted' as being motivated to succeed, having a normal social life, and being generally happy or having anonymous sex at least three times a week, being addicted to methamphetamines, and engaging in suicidal behaviors, it really doesn't matter.

What matters is that they noticed no differences between the two groups.


One area the researchers found no differences in was the mental health of children or their quality of relationship with parents. Children brought up by lesbians and gay men are well-adjusted, have good levels of self-esteem and are as likely to have high educational attainments as children raised in more traditional heterosexual families.




Also, you seem to imply that heterosexual parents influence their children to become a certain way, whereas homosexual ones would somehow not exert an influence, but rather let the children develop "naturally" (funny how it's not me that actually uses that word).

Is there a reason why you think this would be the case?

Because I did not imply it. The research did.


In addition, heterosexual mothers tend to encourage sons to participate in historically "masculine" games and activities – such as Little League – and daughters in more "feminine" pursuits – such as ballet. In contrast, lesbian mothers had no such interest – their preferences for their children's play were gender neutral.

[Rhyfelwyr]

@CR - my point is that it is part biology/part upbringing.


You're missing the point.

Whether they define 'well adjusted' as being motivated to succeed, having a normal social life, and being generally happy or having anonymous sex at least three times a week, being addicted to methamphetamines, and engaging in suicidal behaviors, it really doesn't matter.

What matters is that they noticed no differences between the two groups.

Except they did, the ones we've been debating for most of this thread...


Because I did not imply it. The research did.

Well if they make the play more gender neutral the kids will act more gender neutral, contrary to the nature biology gave them. Parents can't just be neutral and not influence their kids.

[PanzerJaeger]

Except they did, the ones we've been debating for most of this thread...

Not in the well-adjustedness of the children, which is the definition you questioned. You keep insinuating that the children will be dysfunctional, but the research runs contrary to that opinion.


Well if they make the play more gender neutral the kids will act more gender neutral, contrary to the nature biology gave them. Parents can't just be neutral and not influence their kids.

Apparently they can, at least in the activities the children are encouraged to engage in.

Is it better to push a boy into a sport that he may or may not enjoy or let him gravitate towards the activities that truly interest him? I don't know, but the research indicates that it does not effect the mental health, self esteem, and social adjustedness of the child either way.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not in the well-adjustedness of the children, which is the definition you questioned. You keep insinuating that the children will be dysfunctional, but the research runs contrary to that opinion.

And yet some of the examples you gave were stuff that were mentioned when the article talked about lesbian parents, for example the girls sleeping around more.


Apparently they can, at least in the activities the children are encouraged to engage in.

Is it better to push a boy into a sport that he may or may not enjoy or let him gravitate towards the activities that truly interest him? I don't know, but the research indicates that it does not effect the mental health, self esteem, and social adjustedness of the child either way.

The article says of the lesbian parents that "their preferences for their children's play were gender neutral". This means they actively encouraged gender neutral behaviour, not that they somehow sat back and let their children do what they wanted without influencing them whatsoever.

[PanzerJaeger]

Girls who choose to have sex are not dysfunctional. What are the other examples?

You continue to avoid the main conclusions of the research and mischaracterize the study as somehow negative toward gay parenting. It is not.


Their psychological well-being and social adjustment does not significantly differ, on average, from that of children in comparable heterosexual-parent families.

None of this points to 'messed up' children.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This whole topic is like one massive chain reactions where one can of worms opens another.

Anyway, now your painting is as it all girls raised by lesbians do is "have sex", as opposed to having noticably more than those raised by hetero parents. And you imply yourself its a bad thing as some point with your "having anonymous sex at least three times a week" comment.

[ajaxfetish]

Well if they make the play more gender neutral the kids will act more gender neutral, contrary to the nature biology gave them. Parents can't just be neutral and not influence their kids.
Au contraire. If the parents' attitude toward their child's activities is gender neutral, it is precisely then that the child's biological nature can identify their interests, instead of being suppressed by the parents' preferences. Parents not pushing for socially created gender roles allows for more natural development, not less.

Ajax

[Ironside]

For the exceptions they can do their own thing, however you raise children expecting them to be a certain way so you go with the way biology has most likely intended.


Encuragement for more manly tears and more non sexual nakedness then? Or are you going to argue that it's not what biology has intended?

Besides, isn't it something off if you're required to raise them to thier "natural ways" and not simply something they'll discover by themself? Not counting that this "natural way" seems to vary even inside countries.

Sure, a child needs to understand gender roles, because they're a part of society and the actual gender differences are sometimes enough to give a basis for the difference. But that doesn't mean that they should always be adhered, in particular since most differences are due to stigmatic maintaince of gender roles and not the gender difference.

Rhyfelwyr, who did interpret guys being pickier about their choise of girls= sexually repressed? PJ is mostly poking on the still mumbling carcass that the girl should be a virgin, while the guy should have plenty of sexual experience before marriage.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Au contraire. If the parents' attitude toward their child's activities is gender neutral, it is precisely then that the child's biological nature can identify their interests, instead of being suppressed by the parents' preferences. Parents not pushing for socially created gender roles allows for more natural development, not less.

Ajax

No, parents can't just be passive like that, whatever they are doing they are actively encouraging it. Parents are picking toys for their kids before they are old enough to ask for them. Gender neutralness is encouraged just the same way as male/female roles are.


Sure, a child needs to understand gender roles, because they're a part of society and the actual gender differences are sometimes enough to give a basis for the difference.

That's all I ever said.


Rhyfelwyr, who did interpret guys being pickier about their choise of girls= sexually repressed? PJ is mostly poking on the still mumbling carcass that the girl should be a virgin, while the guy should have plenty of sexual experience before marriage.

If it had just said the guys were not having pre-marital sex I would have said great. It's the combination of things that makes it sound so unhealthy. They should still want to be having sex.

[ajaxfetish]

If it had just said the guys were not having pre-marital sex I would have said great. It's the combination of things that makes it sound so unhealthy. They should still want to be having sex.
Wherever did you get the idea that they don't?

Ajax

[Strike For The South]

Girls should want sex to.....

You realize a womans sex drive is just as strong as a mans.....

Talk about freaking antiquated notions of gender roles

[Rhyfelwyr]

Wherever did you get the idea that they don't?

Ajax

Because as I said the combination of things looks seriously unhealthy. Plus why wouldn't they just have sex if they wanted to if they didn't have 'traditional' values?


Girls should want sex to.....

You realize a womans sex drive is just as strong as a mans.....

Talk about freaking antiquated notions of gender roles

Not so much antiquated as realistic and taking into account biological and social factors as most respected figures do in the field these days. And were did I even say anything about the female sex drive. Please, show me...

But don't let me stop the leftist moral outrage, fuelled as ever by strawmen and projectionism...

[Centurion1]

trust me women want sex as much if not more than dudes. they just want it to be good not a five minute cringe fest.

[Ironside]

That's all I ever said.

Not really. Your multiple mentioning of gender roles as being natural/biological is implying that you consider the current roles to fall into being close to natural/biological. That is demonstratly false on several categories. And enforcing the gender roles also has the problem that all categories overlap, and quite a bit on that.


If it had just said the guys were not having pre-marital sex I would have said great. It's the combination of things that makes it sound so unhealthy. They should still want to be having sex.

Indeed, if they won't then it would show severe impact on their psychological well-being and social adjustment. And what did the study show on those issues?

[ajaxfetish]

Because as I said the combination of things looks seriously unhealthy. Plus why wouldn't they just have sex if they wanted to if they didn't have 'traditional' values?
'Traditional' values are the only values that might put restraint on a man's sexuality? You're welcome to your opinion, Rhy, but I have to say the combination of things looks seriously healthy to me.

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not really. Your multiple mentioning of gender roles as being natural/biological is implying that you consider the current roles to fall into being close to natural/biological. That is demonstratly false on several categories.

Name those categories.


Indeed, if they won't then it would show severe impact on their psychological well-being and social adjustment.

But look how well I turned out! Making girl threads on a gaming forum at 21!


'Traditional' values are the only values that might put restraint on a man's sexuality? You're welcome to your opinion, Rhy, but I have to say the combination of things looks seriously healthy to me.

Ajax

What other values would those be?

[ajaxfetish]

Maybe values to do with gender equality, self-control, respect for others. I don't know what exactly the values being taught in their households are, and I don't particularly care. I just found it odd that 'traditional' values could be legitimately expected to restrain men from having sex all willy-nilly, yet non-traditional ones couldn't be expected to have a similar effect. Is it that non-traditional values must by definition encourage more sexual activity, or is it that non-traditional values that restrain the male sex drive must be emasculating in a way that traditional values somehow aren't?

Ajax

[The Stranger]

I think that gender roles are repressive when they are enforced and not allowed to emerge naturally. Not every boy is hyper aggressive and not every girl aspires to be in pageants. Forcing children to adopt these roles can and does cause later psychological issues.

Girls, especially, are at a great disadvantage if they are socially conditioned to aspire only to find and serve a husband. The article mentioned that those that were raised in lesbian households with little emphasis placed on gender roles were more likely to aspire to higher professions and achieve greater things in their lives.

That's not to say that parents shouldn't encourage certain activities, but a child should be allowed to develop his or her own personality and interests free of familial and social pressures.

everything apparantly causes psychological issues...

[Fragony]

@PJ Fifties called they want their housewives back. Modern women want a career and modern men like modern women, long past that nobody is forcing anyone

calls for a classic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

[The Stranger]

most men like any women they can put their thing in.

:O oh my now i am generalising, stereotyping and all kings of thingings. im so badd!!

[HoreTore]

most menhorny virgin teenage boys like any women they can put their thing in.

:O oh my now i am generalising, stereotyping and all kings of thingings. im so badd!!

Fixed.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Gender roles?

Children can be raised by a single father, and grow up well-adjusted.

Women can have careers and men can raise children.

A woman can be childless by choice, and sleep around with guys as her favorite pastime.

A dude can wear a prom dress and the lady can wear overalls.

None of these things makes me blink, but the idea that any of them are inherently wrong does disturb me. Gender roles are cultural norms, and that's fine for the majority, by choice. Others should be free to live the way they want.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Gender roles are cultural norms

How quaint.

[Centurion1]

i like my women ready to be all domestic. and or rich then ill be domestic.

no one said i wasnt fair.

[Askthepizzaguy]

How quaint.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel about all cultural phenomena.

Gender roles, rap music, Justin Bieber, religion.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel about all cultural phenomena.

Gender roles, rap music, Justin Bieber, religion.

Well if you want to ignore the modern scientific consensus fine.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well if you want to ignore the modern scientific consensus fine.

What's your impression of the modern scientific consensus?

Also, do you care about the scientific consensus? :p

[Ironside]

Name those categories.


A few categories from the top of my head. Dress codes. Hair length. Gender colour coding. Several emotional differences ("big boys don't cry", for example. Girls are more emotional, except for anger and lust). Different salaries for the same job. That the mother is always better than the father for the child.
Different treatment about sexuality: Slut, whore, wench, tramp etc. Male equivalents are?

A tricky one is "female jobs", since they were established during a time were women were forbidden to take anything else (nurse, small school teacher).

[miotas]

If Nature is dominant over Nurture, then how are different parenting metods able to have an effect on child's behaviour? I don't see why the Nature crowd is up in arms, if they are right then the Nurture crowd will be completely ineffectual and this whole argument is pointless.

[Fisherking]

What's your impression of the modern scientific consensus?

Also, do you care about the scientific consensus? :p


Do you really mean consensus or rather the dominant voice of published articles?

You are as aware as anyone how these shift from time to time.

I have no problem with not fixing gender roles by parenting methods as long as the children are exposed to a verity of choices allowing them to pick what is best for them.

However, there is much room for misunderstanding and those who are willing to stilt the evidence.

agree?
disagree?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes, there is a bias in favor of publishing articles that show gender differences, an example of the file drawer effect.

[Beskar]

Every study has an hypothesis. Admittedly, sometimes I wish it would be simple just to go "Chemical A with Chemical B, let's see what happens!" then just document the effects without a clear and specific hypothesis.

[Fisherking]

Every study has an hypothesis. Admittedly, sometimes I wish it would be simple just to go "Chemical A with Chemical B, let's see what happens!" then just document the effects without a clear and specific hypothesis.

A particular problem with research in general and social research in this particular instance is publication bias.

Studies showing a significant effect get published. Studies showing no effect tend to be pushed into a file drawer, hence the File-Drawer Effect.

Further complications arise when another study is published showing a significant result in the opposite direction.


Simple example: Study shows- Coffee is bad for you. New Study shows- Coffee is good for you.

You may never know that the first study was sponsored by the tea trade and the second by the coffee industry and several studies reach no conclusions, along with propertied unpublished studies.

Researchers also know that to be publish they need something significant. Study parameters may be set to show some conclusion they wish to reach. This means that studies themselves require careful research before being taken at face value.

World views and political expedients can also effect a studies acceptance or rejection and pretext for giving more weight to a particular study at the expense of another is never in shot supply.

Judging consensus can also be complicated by many of the same issues.

It doesn’t mean that any study can be dismissed out of hand but it does mean that most should be approached with a dose of healthy skepticism.


Long version on the topic: http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_1_scargle.pdf

wiki version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias

[Strike For The South]

The problem is most people don't have the scientific know how to read a study

For the sake of this forum that means if you disagree with me YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG