Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Study: Absence of male role-models not affecting teenage children of lesbian parents

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. For me even more evidence of the dodgy nature of the study by Mark Regenerus publlished in the last week or two.

    Its clear the same sex parents do not adversely affect children.

  2. Well of course there’s no difference. Children have been growing up in non-conventional set-ups for milenia. If there was an issue, we’d have known by now.

    Still, it’s good to see the scientific proof. Now let’s turn the microscope on families growing up in deeply religious families and see how they compare to normal.

  3. Not necessarily a good thing – you would kind of hope that children raised by lesbian parents would be less afflicted by these kinds of stereotypical gender roles…

    1. This research only looked at children raised by lesbians, comparing those with a male role model to those who didn’t.

      Other research has compared lesbians’ kids with the children of heterosexuals; this suggests that lesbians’ kids are less constrained by stereotypes, with more girls aspiring to high status jobs, and more boys being cooperative – but only compared to typical different-sex couples’ kids. If you compare lesbians with liberal heterosexuals, there’s no difference.

      Some of the gender differentiation seen in lesbians’ children is probably because there is stereotyping in society which no parent can eliminate. It’s possible that even the most political lesbians can’t eliminate their own sexism, but I don’t see that as the simplest explanation.

      There’s also a lot of evidence that males and females display, on average, some personality differences which are due to nature and not upbringing.

      So it’s probably partly society, and partly nature’s variety at work!

  4. Another study telling us: Although society says gender matters for parenting, it turns out that it actually doesn’t. Not for the first time, science has shown some common assumptions to be wrong.

    I remember years ago on PN there were quite a few readers worried about this issue, although the evidence was already highly persuasive. There are far fewer comments like that here now (trolls aside!) – the LGBT community seems much more aware of this sort of research than we were. Good.

    Of course this evidence won’t convince everyone. In the US, debate has become so polarised, and respect for reasoned debate so eroded, that it’s often difficult to have a sensible conversation.

    But meanwhile our children are growing up perfectly normal, and that’s what, in time, will convince all but the most implacable haters. Viz the popularity of Zach Wahls.

    In the meantime, we can be proud of our families, and know that we are on average no worse at life’s hardest job than any other parents!

  5. Oh, oh, a bunch of right-wingers in the US are experiencing sudden head explosions. They won’t be missed.

  6. Mumbo Jumbo 20 Jun 2012, 9:03pm

    Not having Jeremy Clarkson in your life would be a stunning advantage to any child.

  7. People actually get paid to come up with theories that are obvious and irrelevant.

    1. Well, Jimmy, you’ve certainly shown yourself to be a completely ignorant fool!

      1. Well, Sally, thanks for that judgement on my character from reading one sentence.

    2. its hardly irrelevant. Being able to point to a long term study like this is extremely useful in dealing with right wing Christian misinformation about parenting.

  8. That was all rather one sided.

    A woman does a study to prove that men are not needed in bringing up children, I smell a feminist.

    Let’s have study to prove that men can bring children up just as well and then we have the proof, it doesnt matter what combination you have, a loving home is all you need.

    1. That you have an olfactory problem in your perception of women is irrelevant to the empirical nature of scientific investigation. But the stink of male sexism is rife in your post.

  9. Homo Sapiens is the most successful mammal on the planet apart from rats and mice. They do it by producing young in bulk. We do it by raising them well in a wide variety of settings. It could hardly be otherwise for a flexible and sophisticated social animal. Insisting on the necessity of ‘male role models’ is sexist guff based on the notion that women cannot be sources of moral or social authority. Tell that to my auntie!! This survey is not a surprise, but useful and timely nonetheless.

  10. Just becasue a woman conducted the study doesn’t mean she’s a feminist. But I agree that a loving home is all you need.

  11. This study is useful as support for us against conservatives who say we are not capable. But look at the way our society has become. The percentage of stay-at-home Mums is much higher than stay-at-home-Dads, and so is the percentage of single Mums to single Dads doing all the child-rearing. Then add the incredibly high percentage of female playgroup, pre-school, primary and high school teachers and what do we have? Children growing up surrounded by women… many without male role-models. There are many kids out there not having male role-models for the first twelve years of their life without being brought up in a lesbian household. And yet the conservatives think lesbians are damaging these children. And they also are fighting to put women back in the home (illegal abortion, birth control, etc) and into lower paid feminised jobs (pre-school and primary teachers for one)where they will be the ones caring for children. How come so many people can’t see this blindingly obvious pattern?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all