Well the answer is -- its a trick question. When we say "need" it means an emotional longing, and the answer is 'yes'. The study answers where "need" is a requirement, and the answer is 'no'...
Sociologist Timothy Biblarz of the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences and Judith Stacey of NYU put this up at a time with obvious political context. Their target is for those whom the belief that, "a child needs a male parent and a female parent is so taken for granted that people are uncritical."
Included in the article are the backwards conservatives...
It has been used by proponents of Proposition 8 to argue against same-sex marriage and to uphold a ban on same-sex adoption.
As well as enlightened progressive leaders...
Barack Obama endorsed the vital role of fathers in a 2008 speech: "Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation."
Their analysis is summed up by Stacey, in language reminiscent of the King of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland. What matters is not the evidence, but whether or not each piece of evidence is important or not...
Stacey concluded: "The family type that is best for children is one that has responsible, committed, stable parenting. Two parents are, on average, better than one, but one really good parent is better than two not-so-good ones. The gender of parents only matters in ways that don't matter."
That quote seems to key in on some of the basic flaws I've found in these studies.
To say that something doesn't matter, acknowledges that it exists, but deems it as little value. A number of studies have shown definite biases towards different amounts of differently gendered parental attention. A number of studies, even those quoted by neutered marriage advocates, point to differences in promiscuity and sexual exploration of children raised by same-sex and both-sex couples. The author tacitly acknowledges their presense, though some of the article is spent dismissing the studies in total. These outcomes are simply deemed unimportant. Elsewhere in the article we read a specific example of this at work...
In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.
One may wonder what they mean by "partial", since lactation is a trait not shared at all by men. Perhaps only partially important. Perhaps only some women breastfeed. But either it is something which is shown to (on average) improve the health and wellbeing of a child or it doesn't.
The opening sentence, much like the article that precedes it, starts as if to make a judgment on family type, but there is a shifting of the cards before the conclusion is dealt. To use an example with cars, I can say, "the best car to drive is" and one would expect a car to be named. I can say, "the best car to drive is one that has gas in it", and then it doesn't matter the type anymore, I'm reaching for a quality that is completely independent of the type of car.
Saying that the relationship needs commitment and responsible parenting should be a given. In fact, it is in and of itself a reason to uphold marriage, since parenting starts with the man and the woman. But the story ignores the potential impact that this can have on a child when those that have the child, that the child naturally identifies with, are the ones that care for each other and the child. Worse then deemed unimportant, it is completely avoided.
Studies have shown that on average, the parents who identify with the children are more able to teach self-identity issues. They are less likely to abuse children.
0 comments,:
Post a Comment