Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
parenting

The Inevitable Attacks on the ‘Lesbians Make Better Parents’ Study Commences (With Concerned Women for America)

So far our favorite attack comes from Townhall‘s Janice Shaw Crouse, a senior fellow at Concerned Women for America’s think tank, and a “recognized authority” on “women’s concerns.” That study from the Gill Foundation and the Lesbian Health Fund of the Gay Lesbian Medical Association, which claims children of lesbian parents are better off?

“The hype for the study was remarkable, with over 116 newspaper headlines blaring the news: ‘Children of lesbian couples do well,'” writes an astonished Crouse. “Few of the articles questioned the fact that the children’s mothers were reporting on their “little darling’s” well-being, social functioning, behavior, and achievements; nor did publications usually note the lack of cross-checking with objective outcomes. Not mentioned, as well, is that over half of the original lesbian-couple participants in the study were separated by the time their children were age six (mean age), though such family upheaval is typically quite difficult for children. Nor did the laudatory reports question the fact that the 78 children in the study contributed their own assessments about their lives and well-being. Without comparing these personal observations with objective outcomes (teacher/counselor evaluations, school report cards, etc.) the study is highly unreliable. The study is neither objective nor comprehensive.”

Crouse’s main problems are with the data collecting (the mothers self-reported on the children, and the parents mainly came from Boston, D.C., and San Francisco). But there’s also the sample: The “only” 77 lesbian couples, and their demographics are problematic: “the sample population [was mostly] Caucasian (93 percent), predominantly college educated (67 percent), mostly middle and upper class (82 percent), professional or managers (85 percent) and a median household income of $85,000.”

And then there’s the conspiracy theory: “A close reading of the Pediatrics article reveals a broader agenda promoting donor insemination, praising female parenting in contrast to having a father present, and, typically, condemning straight society as homophobic — a disproportionate amount of attention is given to descriptions of the children’s negative experiences related to their parents’ sexual preference (but the harassment didn’t affect their well-being, you understand).”

[Townhall]

[photo via]

By:           editor editor
On:           Jun 19, 2010
Tagged: , , , , ,
  • 9 Comments
    • David Ehrenstein
      David Ehrenstein

      What else do you expect from a fascist cunt?

      Jun 19, 2010 at 1:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Baxter
      Baxter

      @David Ehrenstein: While this woman’s motives are obviously homophobic, she does have a point that the study was kind of a joke. Self-reported data with nothing objective to back it up is pretty much meaningless.

      Jun 19, 2010 at 2:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wade MacMorrighan
      Wade MacMorrighan

      Oh please, i seriously doubt anyone whose a minority would EVER think highly of his teachers nor his Guidance Counselor! Mine was a joke! The wealthy kids at my school system (west-central, IA.) were ALL drafted into the TAG program where they went, on almost a weekly basis, to plays, musicals, museums, art exhibits, fancy restaurants, etc.! Looking back on it (because our rarely undertaken field trips were to the milk factory and air port!) were in an effort to respectively groom us for our perceived stations in life! And, our GC was just as bad! He, in EVERY case, gave his full support to students who came from money to go after any career they could dream of, which those who didn’t come from money were told to go to a Comm. College and settle for a medial min. wage job (seriously!). Oh, and then there was the annual donation requests for a local school-based scholarship for a couple students so that they could go to college. My mom donated faithfully, every year 9shelling out $100, which is a lot of money, to us), thinking that me and my brother, who could have used to help, might get in the running. We never stood a chance… The “scholarship” went, every single year, to a student who came from money (likely in an effort to please their parents), rather than giving the money to those who actually NEEDED it and understood the value of a fucking dollar!

      Jun 19, 2010 at 4:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TiredOldQueen@Queerty
      TiredOldQueen@Queerty

      After watching “The Mormon Proposition” here in SF last night, can we assume that Concerned Women for America is funded by the Mormon Church? It seems like every other anti-gay marriage group secretly is…

      Jun 19, 2010 at 9:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      Those homophobes are forever taking small studies of gays and then claiming they indicate what all gay people do.
      Like they’ll do income studies of wealthy gays in the big cities, and then claim that all of us are more prosperous than the rest of America, so how can we be suffering from discrimination?

      How does that saying go — Numbers lie, and lying numbers lie ??????

      . . . lol . . .

      Jun 19, 2010 at 9:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mutie
      Mutie

      @Baxter:

      Aw, geez.. The American public is woefully undereducated on scientific methodologies. There is a control group, i.e. kids of heterosexual couples. In both the straight and gay cases, the same methods were used. So the results are directly comparable.

      Jun 20, 2010 at 3:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Queer Supremacist
      Queer Supremacist

      Fucking heretics.

      Jun 20, 2010 at 9:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ktbisl32
      ktbisl32

      Personally, I think her claims sound perfectly legitimate. Granted, any statistical study you’re doing is going to have certain data collection issues (just because complete randomness isn’t possible). But I think if comparison studies continue, her opinion will be drown out by more data. I’d like to see further studies with greater random samples too. Hey, her institution’s a think-tank they probably have grant money, maybe they’d throw some of that around to people working on the issue rather than throwing around controversial opinions.

      Jun 20, 2010 at 11:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • counterpoll
      counterpoll

      The “Concerned Women for America” should spend less time worrying about lesbian moms and more time fretting about the fact that the more homophobic their husbands are = the more likely hubby is full-on supergay!

      They also should be ‘concerned’ about how the other women will treat them once it’s discovered that *nine percent* of their own children are future Glee cast members and currently attend GLSEN meetings at high school!

      Jun 20, 2010 at 5:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.