There is no fucking ideal.
There is no fucking ideal.
Adamant aren’t I?
Flipping through my Human Sexuality book and my brain, the APA report seems to indicate more androgyny among at least female offspring of lesbian couples. However, androgyny is not such a terrible thing. By its definition, it is having gender role characteristics of both types (masculine and feminine). Studies have shown that such a flexible role can be positive. Citing from my book now…
From Our Sexuality: Eighth Edition
Its not all positive, but none of the gender role types are. I’ll cover that when I get back. Food calls me…
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that in the real world no situation is ever exactly perfect? If so, I agree with you.
On the other hand, if you’re saying that that there literally is no ideal – i.e., that there is no best-case scenario that we can hope for even though it rarely, if ever, turns out in the real world – then I disagree most strongly.
Okay, you refuse to say what appropriate gender roles are, why it is they can only be taught in a heterosexual house hold, and why they’re important.
But you expect us to see that gay households are worse for children because they won’t teach gender roles.
Do you see why we’re the least little bit doubtful of you?
Ok sorry for the delay, folks…
To round out my post fairly simply…
nudges his glasses further up and coughs
After a brief review of my Human Sexuality book, I decided to sum up instead of quoting. If someone wants cites on a particular part, I can probably provide them. Its just too annoying to quote everything…
The masculine gender role as defined by Western society seems to give extreme self-confidence in job contexts, which fits logic pretty well. Poise and ambition are considered very “butch”. Please note that I’m not arguing the rightness or wrongness of such things, only the reality of them as they stand.
On the downside, the masculine gender role at its extreme can inhibit emotional expression and bonding. This too jibes with stereotypes, which really are little more than the roles taken to extreme.
The feminine role is often more caring, more conscious of others’ needs, and considerate about giving offense.
On that downside is the tendency to give over one’s opinions far too easily, and become too afraid of pushing others so one can get what one needs.
Then you have the androgynous role, which bridges between both. Obviously, most people are at least slightly androgynous in their nature, co-opting at least a few items that go against their role type, but the proper application of the term would be “a high score in both the masculine and feminine categories” as registered on the Bem inventory. I’ve already pointed out the benefits of androgyny above, except for the fact that they show much more caring and nurturing than a strongly masculinized type.
The downsides are really twofold
-
Seems to fall in the jack of all trades category. Some tests have indicated that, for example, a highly feminized personality will show more caring than an androgynous one. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
-
Androgynous people seem to report more stress, most especially in the workplace. This seems logical to me, since society rewards conformity to norms and roles. Androgyny simply doesn’t fit.
However, saying androgyny is bad for children is still ridiculous. Despite their stress, androgynous people have better psychological health than is true of the other types. Its a different road, but not a better or worse one for a child to tread. Sometimes it will be difficult, but every road is. Strict gender roles are no more ideal for a child than the middle ground, only cultivating different abilities.
Dewey, according to at least one famous philosopher, the ideal would be for all children to be taken away from their parents shortly after birth and raised by professional childrearers.
If we elected to ensure that all children received an “ideal” childrearing environment, we’d have to set aside all of our Constitutional guarantees and erect a police state. Just how much are you willing to compromise other principles of our social order in order to give children their “most ideal” childrearing environment?
Actually, I think I’ve tackled both of the latter two points. I would take exception to your characterization that gender roles can “only” be taught in a heterosexual household. While I do think that is the ideal environment for such roles to be taught, it does not follow that such roles can only be taught in that environment or not at all. Those lessons can presumably be adequately, if not ideally, taught by the conscientious efforts of a gay adoptive couple.
As for your first point – well, I think much of that stuff defies easy definition. Plenty of things in life are like that. If I were to try to define exactly why I love my wife, I’d be doomed to fail. Doesn’t make it any less real. YMMV, of course, and you’re perfectly free to disagree, but I suspect the argument I’m making rings a chord with more folks than it doesn’t. **
I hate the use of the word “worse” there, even though it’s technically grammatically correct – I think it implies some kind of serious shortcoming on the part of gay people, which isn’t what I’m saying at all – no more so than a statement that a wealthier economic environment is best for children implies some kind of serious shortcoming on the less well off. **
Well, of course. Your intuition does not line up with mine. Which is your right. I don’t think that completely invalidates my position (nor does my viewpoint invalidate yours), but there you have it.
Plato was wrong. **
I’m not sure where you get this – it really comes out of left field. I’ve stated over and over (and over and over and over) again in this thread that I do not think there should be any barriers to gay adoption. If I don’t think that, why on earth would you presuppose that I wanted to take other, more drastic steps to attain the (probably unattainable) ideal?
The short answer, of course, is that I don’t. One can recognize the ideal scenario while simultaneously recognizing that the ideal is not attainable in all, or even most (or hell, even any), cases. One can certainly point to an idealized goal of a childrearing environment while also recognizing that the steps needed to try to make that ideal happen aren’t worth the costs they impose. I don’t see where you would gather that I think otherwise.
Dewey, I think you’re dancing around trying to avoid the inherent contradiction betwee “a heterosexual environment is more ideal for raising children” and “gay couples are not inferior to straight couples”. I think it is your ongoing hypocrisy that is annoying people here, more than anything else.
If heterosexual couples are preferred to homosexual couples, then there is a barrier to gay adoption (there must not be any eligible heterosexual couples seeking to adopt at the moment). “Dispreferred” is not as negative a statement as “disqualified”, but it’s still negative. And “dispreferred” seems to me to concisely sum up your position on the favorability of gay couples as adoptive parents.
Also, Dewey, how do you know that Plato was wrong?
Did you ever say why it is that having “proper” gender roles is better than not?
matt_mcl, well, that’s just obvious and doesn’t have to be said, now, isn’t it?
Are they really contradictory? Is it contradictory to say “a wealthy environment is more ideal for raising children” and also say “less well off parents are not inferior to wealthy parents”? I’m not sure it is. I think “inferior” here is a more pejorative word than what I’m intending, and doesn’t really encapsulate my view. **
Hypocrisy? Are you suggesting that I really don’t believe all this and I’m just faking it? **
I don’t see where you get a “barrier,” especially given that I’ve repeated ad nauseum my belief that no such barriers to gay adoption should exist. It sounds an awful lot like you’re just ignoring that inconvenient portion of my posts.**
A quick look at the historical consequences of the state taking a significant role in childbearing and childrearing decisions.
I think so, but in case I haven’t: gender roles are a fact of life – they exist whether you want them to or not – and a child raised to understand and interact within the context of those gender roles will be better equipped to join adult society.
Hasn’t there been evidence above that that isn’t so? And isn’t it the case that the vast majority of gender-“deviant” individuals (and just whom are you including in this?) grow up in heterosexual households?
As I said, I grew up in a heterosexual household, and I turned into a femme boy. And being a femme boy hasn’t hurt me - it’s challenged me, that’s for certain, and it’s made me stronger in my intellect and my character than I believe I would have had to be otherwise.
I certainly would have been a more comfortable fit into “adult society” if I hadn’t been a shy bookworm, either, but it’s not something I would trade. So I ask again: why is gender deviance so dreadful that even a hypothesizedl link with gay parents renders those parents inferior?
Indeed, matt, I was raised (more by society than my genetic family) to fall within a certain spectrum of “acceptable men”. I do not believe that I fall into that category wholly, and I think you are saying that you share that with me. Yet we were both raised in heterosexual households. I can think of countless examples where this is the case (both in terms of sexuality and it terms of rejected or impartially-accepted gender roles), which would tend to at least strongly question the notion that being raised in a heterosexual environment/household is what is necessary to ensure that gender roles are kept as they are “meant”, or that further it is even necessary for a majority to conform to those.
But of course that raises the argument that straight people are just as clueless as anyone else, however well-intentioned they are, when it comes to raising individuals, not automatons disguised as humans. And that, in turn, begs the question “well why the fuck not let someone else give it a shot”, which evidently we must studiously avoid in favor of … um … no, wait, I really have it here somewhere…
I don’t know or care how you would decide anything, complex or not. I am commenting on the logical implications of your posts to this thread. Not exactly obscure or convoluted implications either. (See also the subsequent post by KellyM, addressed to DCU).
It does not surprise me that you prefer not to address them. But I remind you again that this is a message board - if you can’t deal with people drawing implications from your posts, don’t post them.
The acceptable versus the ideal. I’ve already discussed this.
Think of it like learning a foriegn language. Will you learn a language better if it is part of your daily household communications, or if you are periodically instructed in that language by outsiders? The latter approach might well produce an acceptable level of fluency in that language, but there is little doubt as to which approach is ideal. **
I disagree with the pejorative use of “dreadful” or “inferior.” If I thought gays would make terrible, horrible parents then I would not support gay adoption.
punha: No one in this thread outside of SnoopyFan (who has long since conspicuously disappeared) is opposed to letting gays “give it a shot.” Both Polycarp and myself have clearly stated we do not think there should be barriers to gay adoption.
Dewey, I still think you’re trying to dodge the fact that when you say “less ideal” you mean the same thing as “inferior”. Seems to me that your intellectual commitment to equality is in conflict with your emotional attachment to heterodominance, and you’re objecting to terms like “inferior” and “dreadful” not because they fail to describe your beliefs, but because accepting that they do would reveal your hypocritical commitment to equality.
You don’t want to use a pejorative not because it is an incorrect description, but because you don’t want to be a bigot. You can’t avoid being a bigot by not using bigoted language to describe your position. If your position is bigoted, it’s bigoted regardless of the language you use to describe it.