Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Halbany) writes: >: >> — Does that make up for not having a dad? >: >What is the kid losing by not having a dad? >: Sorry I just have to follow up on this one. >: What is a kid losing you ask?? My husband died in ‘89 leaving me to bring >: up 3 boys on my own. It was pretty easy while they were small, but now that >: the 2 eldest are 14 and 10 yrs, let me tell you they are losing a lot! >: I can’t tell my son how a boys body changes or fix a car! Sheesh don’t you >: know its uncool for a Mom to play one on one with! >: What I wouldn’t do to have a *man* to teach my boys about male things. >: Sharon (just had to rant) >Dear Sharon, >Adherents to lesbianism orthodoxy would argue that there are no "male >things" as oppose to female things. If this were true then follow the >logic: if men are not really necessary, then why live with one (pigs that >they are anyway). Better to find yourself a butch lesbian to take up the >slack in your life. Lesbian parents make better parents because women >are clearly the superior sex. >Love, lenny >–
Ah lenny 
Um….well…I wouldn’t agree with them, I seem to have noticed at some stage that there *are* some "male things" that are different than "female things" as you put it *grin*, for instance their equipment is _far_ different from each other. Nah, I will pass on that option thanks……an no, I don’t think there is any "superior" sex IMHO. We are all equal in different ways, an no I’m not a feminist, its just that I would prefer to leave most things to the males * grin* Cya Sharon
Response:
Hi Laurel It was pretty easy while they were small, but now that > the 2 eldest are 14 and 10 yrs, let me tell you they are losing a lot! > I can’t tell my son how a boys body changes or fix a car! Sheesh don’t you > know its uncool for a Mom to play one on one with! >No, I guess not. Some of my female friends teach their sons or nephews >how to fix cars or play softball. I’m also puzzled as to why you can’t >tell your son about how a boy’s body changes.
I would love to teach him about cars but unfortunately my finances don’t allow me to even *think* of buying a new/used car. Secondly, my day starts at 4.45am and ends at 8pm, by which time I’m really bushed! About body changes, I really meant sexually, being brought up in a house where there was just Mom and myself, I didn’t know much about boys. > What I wouldn’t do to have a *man* to teach my boys about male things. >Aren’t there uncles, brothers, male friends of the family willing to >pitch in? Big Brother organizations in your town? Little League >coaches?
Unfortunately, there are no uncles, if you count my brother who stays millions of miles away and I hardly ever see him, then no, not even a Big Brother organization. I figured to get some books at the local library to help me figure that one out, and thanks for the suggestions. Cya Sharon
Response:
: >Newsgroups: alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids,alt.parenting.solutions : >Path: jake.esu.edu!netnews.upenn.edu!news.cc.swarthmore.edu!psuvax1!news.pop.psu. edu!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!z ip.eecs.umich.edu!newshost.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus .edu!netcom.com!schaf er : >: Why do you place pedophilia, beastiality and ncerophila in the same paragraph : >: as homosexuality? Studies indicate that people that engage in pedophilia and : >: beastiality behaviors identify themselves as HETEROSEXUALS!!! : >Dear Phil, : >Because I believe that all of the above are harmful to children. : >: Your statements are hurtful. They are as wrong as if you made it a racial or : >: ethnic issue. : >What’s harmful is the attempt to spread the lie that homosexual parent : >households are not harmful to children. For children to grow healthy, : >they require good parental role models from each sex. While homosexuals are : *** much stuff deleted *** : >Love, lenny : I really don’t think responding to this post will help either one of us, but I : need to ask a couple of questions. For me to answer your questions, I need some clarifications. : Why do you feel so threatened by people different from yourself? Why do you presume to know how I *feel* as oppose to what I think? : Why is there so much hate in your message? There’s not. Perhaps you’re projecting your own *feelings* into things. : One suggestion. Perhaps you should remove the "Love" from your signature. I : seem to have difficulty finding it in the last two posts that I have responded : to. I think you are using the "He’s-a-bad-hateful-person-so-I-don’t-have-to-address-his-opinions-or- defend-mine" ploy. I regret that you cannot see the love that motivates my words. When I hear some people try to insist that men and fathers are optional second-class parents I feel compelled to address such bigotry. I will admit that this pernicious sexism bothers me and tends to color my words. I guess I sometimes forget that my views are shared by the vast majority of Americans. : Happy fathering to you, : Phil Thank you Phil. And the same to you! Love, lenny —
Response:
>: You’ve based a *very* large claim upon very little, here. Care to support it? >: Sharon Astyk >Dear Sharon, >Civilization did not develop to the level it is today by "families" >created from lesbians with turkey basters.
I apologize if I have misunderstood your implication but it seems you are implying that "civilization" – and I can only wonder what exactly you mean by this term – white, middle class, suburban American civilization perhaps? – developed from the "traditional mom/dad/2.2kid" family. If so, this is an extremely narrow point of view and discounts thousands of years and trillions of peoples of the world who contributed to the development of "civilization" largely without the "traditional mom/dad/2.2 kid" family. >History is the proof that heterosexual, 2 parent families is our >culture’s family system of choice.
History only in the most recent sense, and culture only if you mean white, suburban middle class, American culture. >Care to share what proof you have that sexual fringe constructions of >homosexual couples make equal, if not better environments for children?
Care to share what proof you have that the sexual "mainstream" heterosexual couple makes equal, if not better environments for children? >And where do we draw the line in our experimentations with the lives of >children? Is pedophilia OK, too? How about necrophilia and >beastiality?
What do any of these things have to do with homosexuality? >Sorry, you won’t sell me that such "open minded/ >progressive" idiocy is good for kids. In case you haven’t heard, the >sexual revolution wasn’t.
Well it is certainly clear that you are resistant being open minded. >Love, lenny
– | Sharon Willoughby The Johns Hopkins University | | **** I speak — and sing — for myself **** | | Solvet saeclum in favilla, eia, quis me amabit? |
Response:
>>Your lifestyle is none of my business–until you start mixing in kids. >They are the most vulnerable "minority." >I have two kids and my lifestyle is still none of your business. >Love, lenny > ^^^^ >Since your posts are so hateful, why are you signing them "love"?
Its because he’s feeling a little light headed ever since that cork got lodged in his ass. -Jeem Steatopygias’s ‘R’ Us. doh#0000000005 That ain’t no Hottentot. Sesquipedalian’s ‘R’ Us. ZX-10. AMA#669373 DoD#564. There ain’t no more
Response:
>Newsgroups: alt.support.single-parents,misc.kids,alt.parenting.solutions >Path: jake.esu.edu!netnews.upenn.edu!news.cc.swarthmore.edu!psuvax1!news.pop.psu. edu!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!z ip.eecs.umich.edu!newshost.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus .edu!netcom.com!schafer >: Why do you place pedophilia, beastiality and ncerophila in the same paragraph >: as homosexuality? Studies indicate that people that engage in pedophilia and >: beastiality behaviors identify themselves as HETEROSEXUALS!!! >Dear Phil, >Because I believe that all of the above are harmful to children. >: Your statements are hurtful. They are as wrong as if you made it a racial or >: ethnic issue. >What’s harmful is the attempt to spread the lie that homosexual parent >households are not harmful to children. For children to grow healthy, >they require good parental role models from each sex. While homosexuals are
*** much stuff deleted *** >Love, lenny
I really don’t think responding to this post will help either one of us, but I need to ask a couple of questions. Why do you feel so threatened by people different from yourself? Why is there so much hate in your message? One suggestion. Perhaps you should remove the "Love" from your signature. I seem to have difficulty finding it in the last two posts that I have responded to. Happy fathering to you, Phil
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> — Does that make up for not having a dad? >What is the kid losing by not having a dad? >Sorry I just have to follow up on this one. >What is a kid losing you ask?? My husband died in ‘89 leaving me to bring >up 3 boys on my own. It was pretty easy while they were small, but now that >the 2 eldest are 14 and 10 yrs, let me tell you they are losing a lot! >I can’t tell my son how a boys body changes or fix a car! Sheesh don’t you >know its uncool for a Mom to play one on one with! >What I wouldn’t do to have a *man* to teach my boys about male things. >Sharon (just had to rant)
Here’s another Sharon that feels the need to jump in. First, my story: My kids are 16 and 18 and have grown up without a dad – or rather, they’ve grown up without their dad as a parent – his choice. I think that they have missed out on a lot and my life has certainly been difficult (I have supported my family totally by myself and put myself through school while doing it). HOWEVER – I don’t think for one second, that we would have been better off if their dad had stayed in the picture. I married this man at the age of 16 (if anyone wants to flame me about teenage sex, this is not the appropriate thread) and he turned out to be a alcoholic and drug addict as well as a generally weak and selfish person. He is definitely NOT a role model I want for my children. Instead, these children were raised by a single mom to value learning, independence, communication, and responsibility. I now make enough money (finally) that we are comfortable (I just bought my first new car!). My only regret, and the reason I am jumping in in response to the above post, is that I was not able to provide my kids, especially my son, with more male contact. I only have sisters, my own dad is not involved with my kids (his choice). I’ve had relationships with men since my divorce but (to my regret ;( ) have not found anyone I’d care to share my life with – top priority always being – how can this man fit into my family? For male contact for my kids – I tried boy scouts, church groups, and parents without partners but it never happened. Finally, because my son was having difficulties, I took him to a male psychologist who helped him work through a lot of his issues. He tells me now that this was the best thing I could have done for him at the time. I just feel bad that I wasn’t able to provide more male contacts for him when he was younger. My point, after all this personal stuff (I wanted people to know where I was coming from), is that the previous poster should make every effort to include men in her children’s life but that, in terms of role models, not having a "dad" is not really the issue. I do feel for her loss and recognize from personal experience the difficulties of being forced into being a single parent. However, I believe that she can find many ways to provide her kids with intimate male contact. If I had it to do over, I would have asked – point blank – for coworkers, friends, church members, and any other men whom I respected and admired to become involved with my kids. I kept hoping that if I put my son in the right situations, that it would just happen – it didn’t. I believe, based on my own experience, that my son *needed* male role models and has been harmed by not having them. (Of course it is hard to tease out how much he has been harmed by the limited contact that he has had with his dad – couldn’t do much worse for a role model :/ ). My daughter seems to be having a much easier time of it. I guess only time will tell whether she will have difficult relating to the men in her life. She seems to be doing OK right now. She is a more outgoing social child, was younger when I divorced so has had less contact with her dad (contact I think has harmed her brother), and does relate with male teachers, the school counselor, church youth leader, and the fathers of some of her friends. Sharon — | Sharon Willoughby The Johns Hopkins University | | **** I speak — and sing — for myself **** | | Solvet saeclum in favilla, eia, quis me amabit? |
Response:
>Some other reforms could be the reinstitution of no no-fault [snip] >married households. Donor anonymity should be banned at sperm banks, >making donors accountable for child support obligations from single >parent resulting off-spring.
You may want to find an article about a certain Berkeley-based sperm bank that appeared in a recent (within the last 2-3 weeks) Atlantic Monthly. This sperm bank does offer donors the option of not being anonymous, with any children that they may father being given access to their father’s name at age 18, if they so desire. The article raised several interesting points. For starters, the author pointed out that there are stringent checks on the sperm donors: are they healthy? will they commit to the program? are they mentally and emotionally sound? A potential donor undergoes a lengthy vetting process. However, the potential mothers are not screened at all (at this particular clinic); the only issue is the mother’s willingness. There are some good and obvious reasons for having this type of policy, but it does have interesting implications for your proposed "donors are accountable for child support" idea. Jo Pitesky
Response:
>Sharon, >There is a lot to talk about here and I’m not sure where to begin. First >of al, I think it is best that children have two parents because that is >how they are conceived. We haven’t gotten to parthogenesis yet, it still >takes a male and a female to make human life. We aren’t like sea turtles
Sure, it takes a male and a female to *produce* human life. But I’m not going to conceed that Nature "means for us" to so something – we may be biologically determined to do so, but that doesn’t make it moral – men are biologically encouraged to implant their sperm in as many females as possible – it makes sense genetically and some kinds of our behavior seem to support that idea. But we neither encourage rape nor multiple wives. At a certain point, *we* – not nature, decide what is "meant to be". >Now just having someone with a Y chromosome around the place does not >guarantee bliss. Yes, one parent is better than two parents when one is >abusive. Two lesbians or gays or whatver raising children is better than >being raised by two abusive heterosexuals
Gee, what a gracious admission ;-P. I guess I’d be "whatever" 
. It isn’t "bliss" I’m talking about – you made a statement that two parents of opposite sexes are desirable. What I want is for you to demonstrate that there is something that "Dads" inherently and universally provide, besides sperm, I’m sorry I disagree profoundly – I believe two loving, concerned, committed parents of *any* sex are better than two abusive parents of any other sex. But I also believe that two loving committed parents of the same sex are as good as two loving committed parents of opposite sexes. . But when two homosexuals are >raising a child, something has gone wrong. Whenever the birthparents are >not raising their child, something has gone wrong. Either the natural >parents of the child are deceased or otherwise unable to raise the >child, or divorce has occurred and one natural parent now has a new >partner or in the case of lesbians and artificial insemination, they >have used unatural means to become pregnant. It’s an example of humans >altering their environment. But I think we need to recognize that that’s >what it is – an altering of the environment in which children are >usually raised.
Well, since in the US, a majority of families do not meet the "traditional" model of child raising, what are you using to define "usually"? More than half of all children live with – step parents, other relatives, single parents, etc… etc… You think something has gone "wrong" – maybe some of the time, something has. Certainly, a divorce may have gone wrong, or an accidental pregnancy may have occurred. But just because artificial (or perfectly natural) insemination has occurred among two lesbians does not mean "something has gone wrong" – it means we have, indeed altered the base model of man sticking penis in as many women as possible – but historically we have altered it *many* times – a couple who has a child with the help of medical intervention has also altered that environment. So has a couple who has used birth-control to control the timing of their child’s birth. Or a woman who has anaesthesia in labor. Or a child with a birth defect who has been saved by modern surgery. In each case, we have altered the way children are born. And we alter the "usual" model of how they are raised all the time – we no longer (usually) swaddle. We no longer practice infanticide, or under-feed our daughters. We allow our daughters education. We discourage beating children and spouses. All of these are distinct, meaningful alterations in the ways children are raised. The second problem that I see is that you assume "something going wrong" means that in some way *the relationship* is wrong – and I don’t think that’s true. Something "went wrong" for my parents – they had an unplanned pregnancy. Does that mean that the relationship is wrong? The relationship is not necessarily wholly defined by the fact that something changed, or went wrong. >I think you also underestimate the importance of blood relationship. All >children I know and all parents I know delight in seeing the physical >similarities that they share. Even happy adult adoptees I know often >have a longing to see a picture of their birth parents to see if there >are similarities. If they get to meet blood relatives, they are often >overwhelmed to find someone who has their exact eyes or laugh or funny >looking feet. When you cut the father (or mother) out of this equation, >you cut out half of that child’s genetic inheritance.
Well, now I assume you are referring to lesbian couples where ai has been practiced. That does indeed matter – blood relations do help. I’m not denying that. But the the weight you place on it seems unusual – most of these children have families that resemble them, grandparents and uncles and aunts. And yes, they may miss, in some way, the chance to see the cousin who has their smile – but they have aunt Diane who has the same red hair. You presume that "cutting out" the biological inheritance is a deep and irrevocable loss. I don’t. Actually, though, one of the interesting parts of this is that it is becoming more prevalent for sperm donors to include pictures and other info with their medical records – so that children can see what their genetic heritage is – along with the personal, communal and cultural heritage that they care so much about. >I think when children have parents of only one sex, they are missing >the chance to see people of the opposite sex working together towards a >coomon goal- a family. They miss out on the daily, intimate interaction >of both sexes in their life. I just don’t think really good friends of >the family can provide that kind of interaction that comes from living >in the same house.
Why do you assume that lesbian or gay couples never live with adults of the opposite sex. Why can’t grandparents or other relatives provide such an experience? And why is the experience of adults of *opposite* sexes working together to form a family so much more salutory than watching adults of the *Same* sex working together (under much greater opposition) towards a common goal – a family? Your children miss out, for example, on seeing how loving same sex couples live and interact. *You* don’t see this as a loss (although I would!) – just because you assume that two women cannot offer the same kinds of examples. That’s true – but they offer different, and equally integral ones. What is it about men and women (as opposed say, to gay women and straight women, or black men and white women, or russian men and greek men, or, or…) that provides a relationship that cannot be lived without? What do all men, and all women provide in a relationship that is so integral? Some men can fix the tv. And some men know how to talk about sex with women comfortably. And some men like to hug and touch their sons. And some men can talk comfortably about sex with men. And some men are uncomfortable hugging and touching their sons. And some men roughhouse with their kids, And some men can pee standing up. And some men care for and love their kids. And some men have "traditional" male roles. And some men…. The point is no one man, no one woman, no one couple, provide "men" and "women" to their children. They provide a combination of attributes and qualities that are deeply important to us – so important that we grow up combining our cultural assumptions with our parents and assuming we know what "men" or "women" do. But the point is that no one can demonstrate either that the traditional vectors of masculinity and femininity are the best ones, and contrarily, that all men or all women provide something to their children that cannot, or should not be left out of their lives. >My mother’s father died when she was six. She grew up Ok. (After all she >raised me ). Her own analogy is that of two legs. One legged people >can grow up to be happy, sucessful people, however, no one would >advocate amputating a child’s leg unless the only alternative was to >save his life.
I’m actually kind of offended by this analogy. If your mother had had a Virgin birth, for argument’s sake (another kind of non-traditional alteration in the way things "usually" work – but rather less common), would you equate that upbringing with being brought up with only one leg?!?!? No, because instead of losing something very important to her, she would have grown up with what was best and most important to her, whole and complete. Maybe she would have wondered why the other kids had fathers. Maybe she even would have wished for one. Maybe not. Maybe the way she grew up would have been eminently satisfying and complete. People who grow up with two loving men or women caring for each other do not grow up with "only one leg" – they grow up with two legs, and two complete and whole parents. Sharon Astyk
Response:
> — Does that make up for not having a dad?
What is the kid losing by not having a dad? — "Everything in moderation, especially Laurel Halbany virtue and self-righteousness." Unwed Mother
Response:
Sharon, There is a lot to talk about here and I’m not sure where to begin. First of al, I think it is best that children have two parents because that is how they are conceived. We haven’t gotten to parthogenesis yet, it still takes a male and a female to make human life. We aren’t like sea turtles that leave our eggs in the sand. We aren’t like cuckoos that leave our young to be raised by another species. Normally, humans are raised by their mother and father with the help of other blood relatives. Now the exact details will vary from society to society. But all sucessful societies that I know of (Laura Marple, our resident cultural anthropologist may be able to provide more details) children know who their mother and father are. The father may not live in the same house- but they know who he is. They make ceremonial visits or get recognition from his clan or whatever. We can all come up with endless variations. Now just having someone with a Y chromosome around the place does not guarantee bliss. Yes, one parent is better than two parents when one is abusive. Two lesbians or gays or whatver raising children is better than being raised by two abusive heterosexuals. But when two homosexuals are raising a child, something has gone wrong. Whenever the birthparents are not raising their child, something has gone wrong. Either the natural parents of the child are deceased or otherwise unable to raise the child, or divorce has occurred and one natural parent now has a new partner or in the case of lesbians and artificial insemination, they have used unatural means to become pregnant. It’s an example of humans altering their environment. But I think we need to recognize that that’s what it is – an altering of the environment in which children are usually raised. I think you also underestimate the importance of blood relationship. All children I know and all parents I know delight in seeing the physical similarities that they share. Even happy adult adoptees I know often have a longing to see a picture of their birth parents to see if there are similarities. If they get to meet blood relatives, they are often overwhelmed to find someone who has their exact eyes or laugh or funny looking feet. When you cut the father (or mother) out of this equation, you cut out half of that child’s genetic inheritance. I think when children have parents of only one sex, they are missing the chance to see people of the opposite sex working together towards a coomon goal- a family. They miss out on the daily, intimate interaction of both sexes in their life. I just don’t think really good friends of the family can provide that kind of interaction that comes from living in the same house. My mother’s father died when she was six. She grew up Ok. (After all she raised me ). Her own analogy is that of two legs. One legged people can grow up to be happy, sucessful people, however, no one would advocate amputating a child’s leg unless the only alternative was to save his life. Mother to Martha (6) and Peter (3) Die Wunderkinder
Response:
… : I’m sorry, I’ve seen too many loving two-mother families, and yes, the : children conceived in "the usual way", where the children were happy, even : if they were boys to believe what you have said in your postings about Given that only 1% of the population is lesbian, and even fewer are "family" units with children, your statement about seeing "too many" seems rather doubtful unless you live in a community of lesbians like San Francisco, Santa Cruz or the President’s administration. I also doubt whether your cited happy children, if they exist, would grow up and form healthy relationships with women, given the absence of a male parental role model. We really don’t know yet for sure what will happen but I am strongly opposed to experimenting with the lives of children to find out. Children *NEED* fathers as parents and that takes precedent, IMO, over the desire of lesbians to play house. : that unit being wrong; and too many single-parent moms doing their best : with what they could AFTER THE FATHER ABANDONED any responsibility. I’ve : seen single-moms marry someone they thought would support emtionally and : financially, the child/ren they had, only to have to leave the marriage : when the husband began to molest or abuse those children. You indeed must live in some very strange community, apparently made up of feminist male-bashing stereotypes. Yes some fathers do abandon their families and this is sad and dispicable. However, women file 85% of divorce papers, so I don’t think abandonment is a gender specific attribute. Also recent data clearly indicates that women abuse their children far more than men (it’s easier to slug a kid, than a much larger man–if one is even around). Domestic violence is not a gender problem either–trying to make it so–as lesbian feminists and others have–only worsens the problem by mischaracterizing it. This is exactly the lesbian/feminist inspired anti-male, anti-father propaganda I refered to earlier designed to weaken heterosexual marriages and relationships. This stuff harms children and it must be countered. Love, lenny —
Response:
: [big snip] : >Children need to have a father. *Need* fathers. Fathers are not options : >easily replaced by a turkey baster. Women who are not competent to have : >husbands by either biology or choice, should not be having children. And : >up until recently, for the most part, they didn’t. And yes, gay men : >should be discouraged too. Single and gay parenthood should be : >stigmatized–not out of hatred or bigotry–but out of love for children. : >They deserve better. : So, let’s take that to its logical conclusion: if a woman ends up as a single : mother–let’s say the man abandons her or dies–what then? Do we take the kids : away? Are they doomed? I don’t think so. : Lesli LaRocco Dear Lesli, Interesting brand of logic they must be teaching at Cornell these days, it would appear. "stigmatize" = "take the kids away". A logical conclusion? I don’t think so. On Friday, as a matter of fact, California Governor Pete Wilson banned public adoptions to single parents for the exact reasons I have been discussing: to reverse the trivialization of marriage and fatherhood. Wilson is about to enter the presidential races and understands the mostly traditional values of most Americans. Some other reforms could be the reinstitution of no no-fault divorces, default joint-custody or father custody, and tax credits to married households. Donor anonymity should be banned at sperm banks, making donors accountable for child support obligations from single parent resulting off-spring. BTW, it is not only mothers who out of divorce end up as a single parent, happens to men, too. I am raising my 6 year old son alone. Love, lenny —
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >writes: >: [big snip] >: >Children need to have a father. *Need* fathers. Fathers are not options >: >easily replaced by a turkey baster. Women who are not competent to have >: >husbands by either biology or choice, should not be having children. And >: >up until recently, for the most part, they didn’t. And yes, gay men >: >should be discouraged too. Single and gay parenthood should be >: >stigmatized–not out of hatred or bigotry–but out of love for children. >: >They deserve better. >: So, let’s take that to its logical conclusion: if a woman ends up as a single >: mother–let’s say the man abandons her or dies–what then? Do we take the kids >: away? Are they doomed? I don’t think so. >: Lesli LaRocco >Dear Lesli, >Interesting brand of logic they must be teaching at Cornell these days, >it would appear. "stigmatize" = "take the kids away". A logical >conclusion? I don’t think so.
Interesting brand of assumptions on your part–that I’m a Cornell student. How do you know I’m not a professor? Librarian? Janitor? Or have no connection to Cornell at all, since they sell these accounts? Tsk tsk. Sherlock Holmes would not be proud of you. OK, I’ll play the game. If you stigmatize a woman for having children without a husband (let’s say, though no fault or choice of her own), shouldn’t she be "encouraged" to relinquish those children to two-parent families? If she cannot, because she is a single mother, raise her children properly, don’t we have a duty to step in? And, by the way, if we stigmatize the woman, don’t we also stigmatize the children? Do we say to the child, "We love you, but your mother is wrong/bad/immoral"? Does that help the child? Look, Lenny, we’ve been through that already. Illegitimacy was about the worst thing that a child could be tagged with (unless it was being an illegitimate minority). Even the Catholic church wouldn’t let an illegitimate child take orders. Is that right? Fair? Your assumption is that just because there is no father in the home, there is no man in the picture at all. In fact, there are often grandfathers, uncles, and cousins. Maybe none of them are in the home daily, but they do serve as role models, as do teachers, scout leaders, neighbors, and Superman. >On Friday, as a matter of fact, California Governor Pete Wilson banned >public adoptions to single parents for the exact reasons I have been >discussing: to reverse the trivialization of marriage and fatherhood. >Wilson is about to enter the presidential races and understands the >mostly traditional values of most Americans.
I don’t like the idea of legislating social norms. We have laws against murder because–for the sake of argument– 99.9% of the population agrees that it’s wrong. Unless, say, 98% or 95% or even 90% of America agrees that single-parent families are wrong, I don’t want to see a law about it. My private life is nobody’s business. And that includes how and if I have children. >Some other reforms could be the reinstitution of no no-fault >divorces, default joint-custody or father custody, and tax credits to >married households. Donor anonymity should be banned at sperm banks, >making donors accountable for child support obligations from single >parent resulting off-spring.
Disagree on the no-fault divorce, probably agree on default joint custody in non-abusive situations, and definitely agree on banning donor anonymity. Every person has a right to know who his or her parents are. >BTW, it is not only mothers who out of divorce end up as a single >parent, happens to men, too. I am raising my 6 year old son alone.
So does your son have a good female role model in the home? Where does he get the feminine perspective (whatever that is)? Really, Lenny, why bitch at single mothers when you know the difficulties they face first-hand? Is it because your single parenthood was thrust upon you? You don’t want to be stigmatized, so you? >Love, lenny >–
Lesli LaRocco
Response:
[big snip] >Children need to have a father. *Need* fathers. Fathers are not options >easily replaced by a turkey baster. Women who are not competent to have >husbands by either biology or choice, should not be having children. And >up until recently, for the most part, they didn’t. And yes, gay men >should be discouraged too. Single and gay parenthood should be >stigmatized–not out of hatred or bigotry–but out of love for children. >They deserve better.
So, let’s take that to its logical conclusion: if a woman ends up as a single mother–let’s say the man abandons her or dies–what then? Do we take the kids away? Are they doomed? I don’t think so. Lesli LaRocco
Response:
So, were the Shakers doing children wrong, Mr. Schafer? I’m sorry, I’ve seen too many loving two-mother families, and yes, the children conceived in "the usual way", where the children were happy, even if they were boys to believe what you have said in your postings about that unit being wrong; and too many single-parent moms doing their best with what they could AFTER THE FATHER ABANDONED any responsibility. I’ve seen single-moms marry someone they thought would support emtionally and financially, the child/ren they had, only to have to leave the marriage when the husband began to molest or abuse those children. Marina, mother of Arthur 13.5 mo The (Re)Sourceress C’est la vie, c’est la guerre, Ce n’est pas un pomme de terre.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > parents of opposite sexes? Is it that >> variety and balance are > desirable? If so, than three parents is probably > >Well, I’ll jump in > here! I believe children ought to have the >influence of both a man and a > woman in a parental role, because >there are indeed some pretty > fundamental differences between the >way most men and most women perceive > and relate to the world. > Well, I kind of like a comment a friend of mine once made, upon hearing > that a newborn baby would be raised in a lesbian household: lucky > kid…she’ll have two Mom’s… > Sue
– Does that make up for not having a dad? Die Wunderkinder
Response:
: : You’ve based a *very* large claim upon very little, here. Care to support it? : : Sharon Astyk : Dear Sharon, : Civilization did not develop to the level it is today by "families" : created from lesbians with turkey basters. : History is the proof that heterosexual, 2 parent families is our : culture’s family system of choice. : Care to share what proof you have that sexual fringe constructions of : homosexual couples make equal, if not better environments for children? : And where do we draw the line in our experimentations with the lives of : children? Is pedophilia OK, too? How about necrophilia and : beastiality? Sorry, you won’t sell me that such "open minded/ : progressive" idiocy is good for kids. In case you haven’t heard, the : sexual revolution wasn’t. : Love, lenny : — Well, Lenny, at least you aren’t using pedophilia as a _synonym_ for homosexuality…looking at the rest of your post, I’m infinitely surprised. I intend to raise children, foster and otherwise, whether I am single or not. I do not intend to have sexual relations with my children. The ethical argument against incest and other forms of sexual abuse of children is pretty old and pretty commonly held. I wouldn’t consider it progressive. I don’t understand your definition of history–history is basically _stuff that happened_, right? Well, lesbians did, do, and will have kids. History proves that heterosexual couples are not the only people who can effectively raise children. I hope to God you don’t _teach_ history. *sheesh* Not sorry I flamed ya, but sorry I had to. Kate – Kateren Mariah Lopez Green-eyed lesbian undergraduate nursing student with interest in adolescent health, penchant for the color charcoal grey, and an irrepressible maternal instinct.
Response:
: You’ve based a *very* large claim upon very little, here. Care to support it? : Sharon Astyk Dear Sharon, Civilization did not develop to the level it is today by "families" created from lesbians with turkey basters. History is the proof that heterosexual, 2 parent families is our culture’s family system of choice. Care to share what proof you have that sexual fringe constructions of homosexual couples make equal, if not better environments for children? And where do we draw the line in our experimentations with the lives of children? Is pedophilia OK, too? How about necrophilia and beastiality? Sorry, you won’t sell me that such "open minded/ progressive" idiocy is good for kids. In case you haven’t heard, the sexual revolution wasn’t. Love, lenny —
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Seriously though, I can’t let this comment slip by. I think you make some > assumptions about what "men in general" or "women in general" must do that > I don’t want to address. But what I do object to, and strongly, is your > assumption that because you may believe "men in general" and "women > in general" do something (and I don’t conceed the truth of that), that means > that people in specific ought to behave that way. > Why do you assume that any individual man, or individual woman, might > actually "balance each other out" – and sufficiently so to justify some > kind of policy, even if it’s only in your mind, that "children" both > general and individual are inherently better off with two parents of the > opposite sex? And why would you assume that, for example, in the case > of a lesbian couple, one of whom gave birth to their child and one of whom > did not, might not also find different modes of interaction that were > equally fulfilling? Or for that example, perhaps a straight couple, > in which neither of whom was the biological parent of an adopted child, > might be more fulfilling? On what basis do you make that assumption? > Why "ought" children have two parents of opposite sexes? Is it that > variety and balance are desirable? If so, than three parents is probably > better, and four better still (actually, I do agree that three or four > parents is ideal- but that’s my upbringing speaking). What happens if > both parents in a heterosexual couple have a more protective, possesive > "feminine" mode of interaction with the child? Ought they then enter > a group marriage for variety? > You’ve based a *very* large claim upon very little, here. Care to support it? > Sharon Astyk
Well, I’ll jump in here! I believe children ought to have the influence of both a man and a woman in a parental role, because there are indeed some pretty fundamental differences between the way most men and most women perceive and relate to the world. And I think that, in general, having intimate exposure to these differences helps children piece together the puzzle of how this world goes around. I’m not at all sure it’s a function of who does the child-bearing…I don’t go around relating to my kids as "fruit of my womb" but as the individuals they are busy becoming, and to whom I have become firmly attached. Yes, there are all kinds of exceptions to be made, and I would not question the premise that a child would be better off being raised by two loving mommies or two loving daddies than by a heterosexual couple not into caring for kids. But I see on a daily basis the contributions my husband makes in nurturing our kids, and they are definitely flavored by that Y chromosome. In recognition of this principle, I read about many of the single parents here taking great pains to include friends of the opposite sex in their family circle. It takes a village to raise a child, and it helps if the village is populated with a range of human experience. Valerie * Valerie C. Bock Mom to Jim 8, Steve 6, Katie 3.5 * * Communities In Partnership * * Decatur, Illinois * * * * "Children cannot know what is in our art galleries and * * libraries if we do not take them, any more than they can * * know what is in our conscience if we do not tell them." * * -Penelope Leach in _Children_First_ *
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->:-) A parting sexist comment: I have heard women claim that they are >more likely to care for children since they physicaly issued from their >mother’s body. I have found a dark side to this: I think men are more >likely to treat their children as _people_, who have needs and desires >and who need to be respected, than as _posessions_, as was the case with >my ex-wife. Giving my children (appropriate) control over their lives >was the most natural thing for me to do; yet I have a number of female >friends who were surprised that I would do this. Many of the fathers who >have heard this seem to think that this is a natural part of fathering. > I think this generalization is unfair to parents of all genders! I don’t > believe that women treat children more as ‘possessions’ solely because of > their gestation, childbirth, and gender any more than men treat children > as "possessions" solely because of their monetary support or contribution > to their being.
I think there is truth to both sides. I deally, that is why children should have two parents of each sex. They balance each other out.
Response:
> I think there is truth to both sides. I deally, that is why children > should have two parents of each sex. They balance each other out.
Hmm, four adults for each child? ;-> Actually, according to Arthur, that would be just right for him. It would also keep the load on each *adult* more tolerable! However, I have known several lesbian couples that simply have male friends who help answer questions, do "male" things, and generally help balance out. Obviously, I don’t hang out with separatists. Marina — "Islay…and it’s good-bye to care"
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >:-) A parting sexist comment: I have heard women claim that they are > >more likely to care for children since they physicaly issued from their > >mother’s body. I have found a dark side to this: I think men are more > >likely to treat their children as _people_, who have needs and desires > >and who need to be respected, than as _posessions_, as was the case with > >my ex-wife. Giving my children (appropriate) control over their lives > >was the most natural thing for me to do; yet I have a number of female > >friends who were surprised that I would do this. Many of the fathers who > >have heard this seem to think that this is a natural part of fathering. > I think this generalization is unfair to parents of all genders! I don’t > believe that women treat children more as ‘possessions’ solely because of > their gestation, childbirth, and gender any more than men treat children > as "possessions" solely because of their monetary support or contribution > to their being. >I think there is truth to both sides. I deally, that is why children >should have two parents of each sex. They balance each other out.
Four parents – Yayyy! Someone who agrees with me – more is always better! . Seriously though, I can’t let this comment slip by. I think you make some assumptions about what "men in general" or "women in general" must do that I don’t want to address. But what I do object to, and strongly, is your assumption that because you may believe "men in general" and "women in general" do something (and I don’t conceed the truth of that), that means that people in specific ought to behave that way. Why do you assume that any individual man, or individual woman, might actually "balance each other out" – and sufficiently so to justify some kind of policy, even if it’s only in your mind, that "children" both general and individual are inherently better off with two parents of the opposite sex? And why would you assume that, for example, in the case of a lesbian couple, one of whom gave birth to their child and one of whom did not, might not also find different modes of interaction that were equally fulfilling? Or for that example, perhaps a straight couple, in which neither of whom was the biological parent of an adopted child, might be more fulfilling? On what basis do you make that assumption? Why "ought" children have two parents of opposite sexes? Is it that variety and balance are desirable? If so, than three parents is probably better, and four better still (actually, I do agree that three or four parents is ideal- but that’s my upbringing speaking). What happens if both parents in a heterosexual couple have a more protective, possesive "feminine" mode of interaction with the child? Ought they then enter a group marriage for variety? You’ve based a *very* large claim upon very little, here. Care to support it? Sharon Astyk
Response:
: > : > >mother’s body. I have found a dark side to this: I think men are more : > >likely to treat their children as _people_, who have needs and desires : > >and who need to be respected, than as _posessions_, as was the case with : > >my ex-wife. Giving my children (appropriate) control over their lives : > I think this generalization is unfair to parents of all genders! I don’t : > believe that women treat children more as ‘possessions’ solely because of : > their gestation, childbirth, and gender any more than men treat children : > as "possessions" solely because of their monetary support or contribution : > to their being. : I think there is truth to both sides. I deally, that is why children : should have two parents of each sex. They balance each other out. I don’t agree. I don’t think this is a sex issue at all, it’s a control issue. Each person has different ideas about what kids are supposed to do, how much control they are supposed to have. This is called "parenting style". Some are better than others, but I’ve met alot more men that treat their children like possessions than I have women. I know a man whose daughter is "his little girl" (possession), but his sons are "thier own men". Which reminds me of something funny. I have had the following conversation with my son, Jeremiah, who is 2.7: M: Jeremiah, are you mommy’s boy? J: NO! M: Are you daddy’s boy? J: NO! M: Are you gramma’s boy? J: NO! M: Are you granpa’s boy? J: NO! [goes through several other close family members] M: Are you Jeremiah’s boy? J: YES! I Jeremiah’s boy!! I guess that means it doesn’t matter whether my husband or I think he’s "ours", he knows he’s his own man. ;-D 
— Kandi Hopkins, Columbus, OH The end does not justify the means.
Response:
I’ve noticed a thread developing in relationship to my original post begging for help in dealing with my toddler. Said quote: >:-) A parting sexist comment: I have heard women claim that they are more >likely to care for children since they physicaly issued from their mother’s >body. I have found a dark side to this: I think men are more likely to treat >their children as _people_, who have needs and desires and who need to be >respected, than as _posessions_, as was the case with my ex-wife. Giving my >children (appropriate) control over their lives was the most natural thing for >me to do; yet I have a number of female friends who were surprised that I >would do this. Many of the fathers who have heard this seem to think that >this is a natural part of fathering.
I think this generalization is unfair to parents of all genders! I don’t believe that women treat children more as ‘possessions’ solely because of their gestation, childbirth, and gender any more than men treat children as "possessions" solely because of their monetary support or contribution to their being. Good parents treat their children as, well, children. They are not miniature adults — they are children in need of LOVE along with some rules, structure, and discipline (read TEACHING not PUNISHMENT). We cannot treat our children as little adults — they are not capable of the same reasoning, control over their bodily functions, or temperance of their emotions and desires. Even adults vary in their capabilities. By the same token, we cannot treat children as "pets" or "possessions" — it is my firm belief that my daughter is a gift; mine to care for, for a brief time on this earth, mine to cherish and teach and love as best I can. When I say ‘mine’, I do not imply that she belongs to me, like a refrigerator or a toaster. I am her caretaker for a short time — until she can become her own caretaker. I do not treat my daughter as a "possession" but rather a separate human being — one with her own opinions, temperaments, likes, interests, and problems. It is my JOB as her mother to help her reach her full potential in many different areas — it is not my intention in teaching her certain neccessities of life (like wearing clothes or brushing her teeth) to "control" her. It IS my intention to keep her safe, healthy, and as happy as is it possible to be in life. I want her to have enough rules and structure to feel comfortable and secure but not too many so she feels constricted or "ruled". I want her to have enough decision making in her life, appropriate to her age, so that she knows how to make a decision and live with the consequences of that decision. At the same time, I don’t want her to have too many decisions so that she becomes overwhelmed with life! It is a difficult "dance", particularly as a single parent. Having given my 2cents worth of unasked for opinions, I will withdraw quietly and await the opinions of others! Hargray Telephone Co. "It takes a great soul P.O. Box 5519 to be a true friend." Hilton Head Island, SC 29938-5519 Single mom to Jessica, 3
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.