Yeah — I think there are a few differences at play. One could simply be the characteristics of people who become pregnant accidentally versus those who go out of their way to obtain fertility assistance. On average, you might expect the latter group to be less chaotic and better at planning than the former. I think this probably results in a better environment for the kid (wealthier, more stable), but may also involve parents passing on better “marshmallow test” genes.
I also wonder if “absent fathers” is actually a phenomenon that acts at the population level as much as or more than at the individual level — in other words, when the number of adult males on an area drops below a certain level, does that actually in and of itself trigger different survival strategies in adolescent males, including greater aggression and risk-taking and, perhaps, less willingness to obey mothers?
And in that kind of environment, I would believe that a parent with a deeper voice, who is less nice, and who brings a certain amount of his own male aggression and size into the conversation, could indeed have a meaningful effect.
So, no, I don’t think lesbian moms are a big social problem. But I do think when boys have been shaped by a variety of factors to be aggressive risk-takers, male influence may sometimes be critical. But that particular need probably doesn’t come up as much in the population of kids descended from and raised by lesbians (and probably straight parents, too!) who planned their pregnancies and obtained fertility assistance.
Yes, I thought about mentioning genetics. If a child’s biological parents are irresponsible or troubled, he might inherit some of those genes. Or sometimes a bad environment causes both the father’s behavior/absence and the son’s behavior.
I absolutely believe male role models matter, just that it doesn’t have to be the biological father who teaches healthy masculinity. And educated lesbians are often proactive about finding male role models. We moved to my parents’ town (so he gets time with his grandfather), enrolled him in martial arts, and visit his donor. That’s part of the advantage of our situation, that we can afford pricey activities and travel.
I've been chewing on your comment about absent fathers at the population level. This is something, in my world, that's really hard to picture, but it's reality for the incarcerated youth I work with - often they and their male siblings are *all* incarcerated, it's so rarely just one young man from the same family. Their dads are often either in prison or just gone; the men in their lives are much older and have largely all come out of the same prison system. I've heard young men, especially men who have wives and kids outside prison, talk about the realization that they barely know any men who are young fathers - there's this huge deficit of men in their 20s and 30s in their communities.
I don't know the solution, but I think your question, about what it changes about a young man's social world to grow up in a place where there's such a low number of men 10-15 years older than him, is really interesting.
It's a really interesting point, probably with causation running in both directions. Like in some Chicago neighborhoods. Everyone is in gangs, so the men get incarcerated, so there are no fathers to help keep them out of gangs, so everyone is in gangs... impossible to untangle how much of it is the loss of men, specifically, vs. the fact that so many kids have lost a parent. But I'm sure it has an impact when there are so few positive male role models.
Having grown up as a latchkey kid of divorced parents, it's interesting to me that we focus on gender here at all. I think having only one parent around, regardless of gender, puts families at greater risk. If you've got a single parent with a full-time job, or multiple jobs, no family to help out, and not enough cash to enroll the kid(s) in a series of supervised activities, it doesn't matter if their voice is low and their genitalia match -- there's just not enough oversight to meditate all bad influences and safeguard mental health. It's far less common for kids to live with just a father, but I'd bet kids from those households have their fair share of behavioral struggles. Raising kids is a huge job for 2 people, let alone 1.
I'm not suggesting all single-parent families are unstable obviously, or that male role models aren't important, just that it seems unlikely to me that fathers are some magic bullet. Their absence may be correlated to worse outcomes, but that doesn't necessarily indicate direct causation tied to the lack of some essential male energy. More probably that second income, physical presence and (hopefully) extra emotional support are vital.
I agree with you. This also fits with how Melissa Kearney sees it in her book-- the most important thing is to have 2 parents contributing time and resources to raising the kids.
It's funny how single-father families almost never get mentioned in discourse. It would be interesting to see data on behavioral outcomes. Anecdotally, we have a single father in my extended family, and he had a hard time keeping the kids out of trouble. Definitely wasn't a magic bullet.
I grew up in the 2000s/early 2010s standard liberal mindset, and this is what I always heard on the subject- kids need a stable home, and it's much better for them to have two married parents, but provided those things are present there's no real problem if the parents are gay. I think this father absence stuff is a bit woo, to be honest, and people are *really* overcorrecting from the previous "nothing can be better or worse than anything else ever" orthodoxy.
Have you read Abigail Shrier's new book? I'm about 1/3 of the way through, and one distinction she makes is between adversity and dysfunction. Children of immigrants, for example, face a lot of adversity: having parents who don't know the language, getting made fun of for being different, navigating two cultures, etc. Yet, they seem to come out with fewer mental issues than the general population.
On the other hand, there's dysfunction. Having to worry if your dad will beat your mom if he drinks too much isn't something the child can overcome. That sort of behavior is associated with more mental issues growing up.
Unfortunately, Shrier doesn't propose strong definitions of either. I don't know exactly how we draw the line between adversity and dysfunction. Still, I'd think of having gay parents as a bit of adversity (and a very small bit, given all the other things someone can face) rather than something that children simply can't overcome.
I also don't buy the "boys need role models" thing, but maybe that's a topic for my own blog article. In short, I think habits and culture are far more important. I remember hiding a C test score from my parents in fourth or fifth grade, worried that they would scold me. My parents are the least abusive parents ever to exist, by the way, so this wasn't founded on any legitimate fear. It's just that they instilled a culture in me in which academic success was paramount. I imagine lots of Ashkenazi Jews have a similar story. If I search my very Jewish surname on LinkedIn, I see a bunch of C-level executives, professors, engineers, etc. Although I doubt many of these people had parents of the same profession, they probably grew up with a similar emphasis on academic and financial success.
Klaus, it's great to hear from you. Thanks for your comment.
I haven't read the book. It sounds like the difference might be that dysfunction occurs within the family, while adversity comes from outside the home? I'm not sure how to categorize gay parents. If my son ever gets teased, that will be adversity. But he might also struggle with wishing he could be closer to his donor (there's a lot of geographic distance right now) which is stress coming from his family situation.
I agree about culture. My son is being raised by two moms with doctorates, and we emphasize homework, learning, etc... it's hard to imagine he will fail to absorb those values because we're both women.
It's interesting really. Those citing that two married heterosexual parents are 'optimal' for the child seem to forget that, just through sheer numbers alone, there are going to be considerably more sub-optimal heterosexual parents in spite of that. Neither mum nor dad could be good role models (I talk from experience). And I daresay the demographic of homosexual people who go out of their way to have a child, deliberately and at great effort and expense are already aligning themselves as going to great effort for their baby and child. That anyone could question good parenting arbitrarily based on sexuality is a rather impressive, albeit heinously flawed, stretch.
Yeah — I think there are a few differences at play. One could simply be the characteristics of people who become pregnant accidentally versus those who go out of their way to obtain fertility assistance. On average, you might expect the latter group to be less chaotic and better at planning than the former. I think this probably results in a better environment for the kid (wealthier, more stable), but may also involve parents passing on better “marshmallow test” genes.
I also wonder if “absent fathers” is actually a phenomenon that acts at the population level as much as or more than at the individual level — in other words, when the number of adult males on an area drops below a certain level, does that actually in and of itself trigger different survival strategies in adolescent males, including greater aggression and risk-taking and, perhaps, less willingness to obey mothers?
And in that kind of environment, I would believe that a parent with a deeper voice, who is less nice, and who brings a certain amount of his own male aggression and size into the conversation, could indeed have a meaningful effect.
So, no, I don’t think lesbian moms are a big social problem. But I do think when boys have been shaped by a variety of factors to be aggressive risk-takers, male influence may sometimes be critical. But that particular need probably doesn’t come up as much in the population of kids descended from and raised by lesbians (and probably straight parents, too!) who planned their pregnancies and obtained fertility assistance.
Yes, I thought about mentioning genetics. If a child’s biological parents are irresponsible or troubled, he might inherit some of those genes. Or sometimes a bad environment causes both the father’s behavior/absence and the son’s behavior.
I absolutely believe male role models matter, just that it doesn’t have to be the biological father who teaches healthy masculinity. And educated lesbians are often proactive about finding male role models. We moved to my parents’ town (so he gets time with his grandfather), enrolled him in martial arts, and visit his donor. That’s part of the advantage of our situation, that we can afford pricey activities and travel.
But like you said, we aren’t seeking male role models to keep him off the street. There is no street where we live. The stakes are lower.
It’s more about the sort of discipline he needs for success than keeping him out of gangs or something.
I've been chewing on your comment about absent fathers at the population level. This is something, in my world, that's really hard to picture, but it's reality for the incarcerated youth I work with - often they and their male siblings are *all* incarcerated, it's so rarely just one young man from the same family. Their dads are often either in prison or just gone; the men in their lives are much older and have largely all come out of the same prison system. I've heard young men, especially men who have wives and kids outside prison, talk about the realization that they barely know any men who are young fathers - there's this huge deficit of men in their 20s and 30s in their communities.
I don't know the solution, but I think your question, about what it changes about a young man's social world to grow up in a place where there's such a low number of men 10-15 years older than him, is really interesting.
It's a really interesting point, probably with causation running in both directions. Like in some Chicago neighborhoods. Everyone is in gangs, so the men get incarcerated, so there are no fathers to help keep them out of gangs, so everyone is in gangs... impossible to untangle how much of it is the loss of men, specifically, vs. the fact that so many kids have lost a parent. But I'm sure it has an impact when there are so few positive male role models.
Having grown up as a latchkey kid of divorced parents, it's interesting to me that we focus on gender here at all. I think having only one parent around, regardless of gender, puts families at greater risk. If you've got a single parent with a full-time job, or multiple jobs, no family to help out, and not enough cash to enroll the kid(s) in a series of supervised activities, it doesn't matter if their voice is low and their genitalia match -- there's just not enough oversight to meditate all bad influences and safeguard mental health. It's far less common for kids to live with just a father, but I'd bet kids from those households have their fair share of behavioral struggles. Raising kids is a huge job for 2 people, let alone 1.
I'm not suggesting all single-parent families are unstable obviously, or that male role models aren't important, just that it seems unlikely to me that fathers are some magic bullet. Their absence may be correlated to worse outcomes, but that doesn't necessarily indicate direct causation tied to the lack of some essential male energy. More probably that second income, physical presence and (hopefully) extra emotional support are vital.
I agree with you. This also fits with how Melissa Kearney sees it in her book-- the most important thing is to have 2 parents contributing time and resources to raising the kids.
It's funny how single-father families almost never get mentioned in discourse. It would be interesting to see data on behavioral outcomes. Anecdotally, we have a single father in my extended family, and he had a hard time keeping the kids out of trouble. Definitely wasn't a magic bullet.
I grew up in the 2000s/early 2010s standard liberal mindset, and this is what I always heard on the subject- kids need a stable home, and it's much better for them to have two married parents, but provided those things are present there's no real problem if the parents are gay. I think this father absence stuff is a bit woo, to be honest, and people are *really* overcorrecting from the previous "nothing can be better or worse than anything else ever" orthodoxy.
Have you read Abigail Shrier's new book? I'm about 1/3 of the way through, and one distinction she makes is between adversity and dysfunction. Children of immigrants, for example, face a lot of adversity: having parents who don't know the language, getting made fun of for being different, navigating two cultures, etc. Yet, they seem to come out with fewer mental issues than the general population.
On the other hand, there's dysfunction. Having to worry if your dad will beat your mom if he drinks too much isn't something the child can overcome. That sort of behavior is associated with more mental issues growing up.
Unfortunately, Shrier doesn't propose strong definitions of either. I don't know exactly how we draw the line between adversity and dysfunction. Still, I'd think of having gay parents as a bit of adversity (and a very small bit, given all the other things someone can face) rather than something that children simply can't overcome.
I also don't buy the "boys need role models" thing, but maybe that's a topic for my own blog article. In short, I think habits and culture are far more important. I remember hiding a C test score from my parents in fourth or fifth grade, worried that they would scold me. My parents are the least abusive parents ever to exist, by the way, so this wasn't founded on any legitimate fear. It's just that they instilled a culture in me in which academic success was paramount. I imagine lots of Ashkenazi Jews have a similar story. If I search my very Jewish surname on LinkedIn, I see a bunch of C-level executives, professors, engineers, etc. Although I doubt many of these people had parents of the same profession, they probably grew up with a similar emphasis on academic and financial success.
Klaus, it's great to hear from you. Thanks for your comment.
I haven't read the book. It sounds like the difference might be that dysfunction occurs within the family, while adversity comes from outside the home? I'm not sure how to categorize gay parents. If my son ever gets teased, that will be adversity. But he might also struggle with wishing he could be closer to his donor (there's a lot of geographic distance right now) which is stress coming from his family situation.
I agree about culture. My son is being raised by two moms with doctorates, and we emphasize homework, learning, etc... it's hard to imagine he will fail to absorb those values because we're both women.
It's interesting really. Those citing that two married heterosexual parents are 'optimal' for the child seem to forget that, just through sheer numbers alone, there are going to be considerably more sub-optimal heterosexual parents in spite of that. Neither mum nor dad could be good role models (I talk from experience). And I daresay the demographic of homosexual people who go out of their way to have a child, deliberately and at great effort and expense are already aligning themselves as going to great effort for their baby and child. That anyone could question good parenting arbitrarily based on sexuality is a rather impressive, albeit heinously flawed, stretch.
Will be excited to hear from your son in 15 years or so once he's navigated puberty and adolescence. He'll have a wonderful perspective.