5 ms·
How exactly is that better the two mothers? Do you have evidence?
by lokar 3y ago
How exactly is that better the two mothers? Do you have evidence?
- jvanderbot 3y agoI would be very surprised if GP thought that only father/mother combos are the best and instead was just agreeing with TFA.
- nicholasjarnold 3y agoYep, I don't have the source to cite right now, but I recall reading research indicating that the important factor was 2 loving and supportive parents regardless of their sex or sexual orientation.
- ormaybejust 3y ago[flagged]
- digging 3y agoIt feels extremely unusual to me to specifically call out a mother/father relationship if they weren't intending to exclude queer relationships. A note for all readers: don't say "nothing better than a [straight relationship]" if that's not what you mean.
- vorpalhex 3y agoMost relationships, especially with kids, are heterosexual.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- digging 3y agoIn what way is that a response to this discussion?
- vorpalhex 3y ago> It feels extremely unusual to me to specifically call out a mother/father relationship if they weren't intending to exclude queer relationships When most relationships are hetero, just calling out hetero pairing as a proxy is.. perfectly fair. That's not some kind of secret exclusionary dogwhistle just to use common language. If parents are almost always a man and a woman and you say "kids with a mom and a dad"... you're just using the English language. Dogpiling someone and attempting to shame them for "a lack of inclusivity" isn't some kind of meaningful attack, it's just a failure to be a useful communicator.
- digging 3y agoHard disagree. Saying "two parents" is faster and easier than saying "a mom and a dad". Listeners can fill in the gaps with their own biases; the speaker doesn't need to. Anyway, I'm not the one failing to communicate usefully here. Did you actually read the original comment? It has no meaningful content. It is just a more verbose way of saying less than the title of the article -- unless you read it literally, in which case it's an explicitly homophobic way of restating the title.
- bluefirebrand 3y agoEvery child on the planet is guaranteed to have a male parent and a female parent. I'm not aware of any ways to create a child without that. Call them a "sperm maker" and an "egg haver" if it makes you feel better but that's reality. Encouraging both of those people to take on the role of mother and father and parent together isn't some crazy, outlandish idea.
- em-bee 3y agothe best outcome is always for a child to be with both biological parents. any other constellation may still provide a wonderful environment, but it always implies the absence of at least one biological parent, and this will affect the child.
- lokar 3y agoI think we should avoid assuming intentions. If they want to follow up they can, otherwise we should assume the best.
- nathanaldensr 3y ago[flagged]
- digging 3y agoDon't use scientific words to make unscientific claims about the "natural" state of human families.
- mortureb 3y agoEven uncontacted tribes coalesce around two forms of family. Extended or polygamous. There is a natural state.
- ahf8Aithaex7Nai 3y agoThe state of nature exists only as an idea. Primitive peoples are just as alienated from their supposed state of nature as we are.
- mortureb 3y agoThat’s a hard argument to make if completely alienated populations, irrespective of geographical location, coalesce around the same idea.
- ahf8Aithaex7Nai 3y agoI don't think that's the case. And I don't think you're an anthropologist or anything. It's just a convenient narrative when it fits into your own view. Polyandry was and is widespread in some cultures. I wonder if you would accept that as a state of nature.
- mortureb 3y agoA handful of cultures exist where polyandry is practiced, mostly contemporarily as a side effect of a paucity of women, and the woman is treated as a shared property amongst the men who also sleep with other women at the same time (North Eastern India, parts of Thailand, a couple of Native American tribes)
- anon291 3y agoThere is ample evidence that boys and girls with fathers do better.
- dagw 3y agoAmple evidence that boys and girls do better with a father and a mother, compared to just a mother. Are there studies that show that two mothers are worse than a mother and a father (or just a father for that matter, if we believe that the male role model is significant factor).
- iteratethis 3y agoI don't have the studies at hand but did come across research articles earlier that suggest that girls are only mildly affected in a female-only parenting situation whilst boys are strongly affected. It makes sense as they have no male role models. Not at home and close to none in most of their schooling trajectory.
- User23 3y agoIf you’re asking for strict double blind randomized trials then no of course not that research would be totally unethical. On the other hand we have a growing mountain of evidence that boys without fathers have comparably worse outcomes and so far as I know there’s no serious dispute. Also, frankly, the suggestion that fathers are optional or even unnecessary is quite sexist. Just because we’re generally inured to anti-male sexism doesn’t keep it from being objectively wrong.
- lokar 3y agoAll of the studies I have seen are about boys with only a single parent (mother).
- bluefirebrand 3y agoSeems like raising a kid requires exposing them to many different experiences growing up, and generally speaking fathers will provide different experiences mothers. Do I have evidence? No. Do you have any evidence that any other form of parenting is just as good?
- lokar 3y agoI’m not the one saying that the government should intervene in how people form families.
- bluefirebrand 3y agoIf you disagree with that, and disagree with the initial assumptions, don't you think it would be easiest to post evidence of your own rather than demanding evidence from those you disagree with? Or do you refuse to post your evidence until other people post theirs, like some kind of standoff?
- lokar 3y agoIMO, the burden for strong evidence is on the people trying to interfere in my private affairs.
- bluefirebrand 3y agoNo one is trying to interfere in your private affairs in this conversation. You have definitely read something into it that was not actually stated
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mortureb 3y agoI’m saying we tried that and don’t have much to show for it.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
- 300bps 3y agoPrinciple of Belief Conservation. For any proposition, P: 1. Taking a certain cognitive stance toward P (for example, believing it, rejecting it or withholding judgement) would require rejecting or doubting a vast number of your current beliefs, 2. You have no independent positive reason to reject or doubt all those other beliefs, and 3. You have no compelling reason to take up that cognitive stance toward P. Then it is more rational for you Not to take that cognitive stance toward P. --- This is basic logic. If you're proposing a system of raising children that goes against the vast majority of cultures spanning thousands of years then it's on the proposer of the new system to come up with the evidence that it's just as good.
- ahf8Aithaex7Nai 3y agoThe principle of quickly googling any logical principle that suits you, and then claiming, roughly, that it is applicable here, and that if you disagree, you are effectively denying that 1+1=2. HN at its best.