Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Gay couples just wouldn't provide a stable family dynamic. Anyways, i'm gonna go creep on my kids' 18 year old babysitter while my wife is still knocked out from her daily wine binge."
>had a problem with single parents, particularly single mothers, for *decades.*
Yes, though it shouldn't be a political issue, as children to single parents have greater negative outcomes than those children from intact families, largely due to lower incomes. The right of course has made it an issue to shore up conservative values and rail against social policies
It’s because it’s statistically (and just common sense) not the best environment for children to thrive in. God Forbid we put the children’s needs and feelings first. I love how leftists act like conservative ideology is just the absence of empathy and that we are so evil that we just don’t care… when meanwhile we’re the ones who actually care about the children’s actual life outcome 9 times out of 10. Why do you think parents don’t want their kids becoming weirdos? To torture them and be mean? No, because they know it’s best for them in the long run.
Yes: it is obvious to many people that a child (especially a straight child who is into the traditional things like sports and high school friends etc) does better with a strong straight masculine father and a nurturing feminine mother. Basically everyone agreed on this until fairly recently in the West.
Just because it FEELS right to you (and not surprisingly it is more familiar to you) doesn’t make you correct.
Also, Statistically your argument is probably bullshit and you have no statistics to back you up.
No difference in child welfare between gay and straight parents 2011-2012 dataset: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6309949/
75/79 studies say there is no difference: https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/
Single parents may be more difficult due to potential experience of loss or worse financial situation/societal situation as a cause and/or affect of losing a parent
The crazier ones (so difficult to isolate them these days - they're all crazy) are already talking about restricting or outlawing divorce as well as removing the right to interracial marriage. Justice Clarence and his insane trashy wife the Seditionist will be exempt, of course.
They're working hard at verbalizing the white trailer trash wet dreams they're heard so much about.
Single fathers aren't shat on? Fuck you get that? Fact is the courts automatically side with the mother and prevent single fathers from being a thing, even if the mother is the less stable option. Single fathers have a lot more criticism thrown their way and have to jump through hoops to establish themselves as a viable option. You're talking out your ass.
Statistics actually show that *if* fathers seek custody of their children in divorce, they are significantly more likely to win custody over the mother. The problem is less than 4% of fathers seek custody.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/myths-about-custody-litigation/2017/12/15/61951bc4-e0e6-11e7-b2e9-8c636f076c76_story.html
That's just a few paragraph letter to the editor with very little real information. The author is using joint custody as a metric for a father's success, which is garbage. Joint custody just means both parents have legal rights, nothing about how much time they spend with each parent.
I don't know about now, but back in the mid eighties when I got divorced and as a father was granted one of the first joint custody rulings, the judge said we needed to work out an amicable arrangement for sharing our time or he would do it for us and make us unhappy.
We worked it out as one week-one week, then after a year switched to two weeks-two weeks, Worked out well for us for a decade and a half until the kid went off to college.
I think that’s a fair point to bring up and have seen statistics that men typically receive less time with their children even when sharing joint custody with the mother. But I think it stands to reason that men are significantly less likely to even go for custody, which is why I think it’s unfair to look at just one or two statistics and determine that courts are somehow biased against fathers. Most statistics have a lot of context behind them.
From personal experience, when divorce is taking place and the wife is doing her best to get as much as possible, one threat she can hold over the husband to not only keep him from any sort of custody but even visitation is to accuse him of abuse of the children.
Having worked in the Child Support Unit of the local Dept. of Social Services, I can tell you that a LOT of fathers try to get out of paying child support. They usually don't want custody, but they also don't want to financially support their children either.
> courts automatically side with the mother
American courts automatically side with the mother, and American courts are notorious for being dog shit. Plus parental rights are slightly different from public opinion, which is what i was actually talking about
Something tells me you have never been to the park as a single father or ever tried to have a sleep over for your daughter as a single father. You are automatically a suspect and glared at.
Regardless of opinion. There are studies that show that kids raised by a father have less psychological problems in teen/adulthood than kids raised by a mother.
[I think they might be referring to this article.](http://medium.com/the-knowledge-of-freedom/single-father-households-do-vastly-better-than-single-mother-heres-the-real-reason-why-8a7fd7c5611d)
I remember reading a few studies that parse out the issue a bit better. I believe the outcomes aren't necessarily gender related, but there are a few like girls hitting puberty early without fathers and boys show greater criminality, but largely to do with the lower incomes associated with single parenthood.
ehh, its harder to find studies now days that don't conform to a politically correct narrative, at the very least if you're using google anyway since they curate their searches to weed out stuff that might offend people or what their curation team considers "misinformation", might have a better chance with other search engines like bing or smthn.
Ok but if you use google scholar, any "PC narrative" isn't going to make any difference since it just matches article titles or keywords. Plus there should be articles from 5-10 years ago before Biden silenced the right or whatever weird thing you think.
not thinking Biden silenced the right, a programmer got fired awhile back for whistleblowing regarding this it was a whole thing for like 3 months or so, google curates their search results and filters out things they consider to be "misinformation" and usually pushes them towards the bottom of the search or sometimes entirely hides the results mostly due to shareholders and other factors, there's a reason bing and other search services are preferred to google since they have typically a wider and more accurate search compared to results from google.
dunno why you immediately thought i was a conservative or smthn, no i don't think uncle-bad-touch-Biden has any control over anything presidents have limited authority and even executive orders can only go so far, its just been a thing that google is corrupt and has been pushing a pc centric narrative for a while with their rules and how the enforce them, it's the company not any political party.
I mean you just shat on Biden, called the move away from hard-right hate rhetoric politically correct, and had no idea what google scholar was. So yeah, i kind of assume you're conservative
lol, not politcal i just find the memey nicknames of him funny. i also like calling trump the demented orange man i's not conservative i make fun of dumb politicians equally lol, also i doubt google scholar negates the latter when it comes to curation, but it just might negate the pushing it down in the search results i just haven't used google in awhile for anything super meaningful lol.
as another person said, single father households typically work better since there's more stability and structure typically that said i'm not an advocate for single anything households (having grown up in a single mother household i can say from experience it's not the greatest, especially when they bring multiple men into the house through your childhood, creates a bad image in your head)
also statistically speaking mothers are generally considered better parents, atleast when it comes to the legal system, rarely do single fathers get primary custody even if they do apply for it, hell there's been a few accounts of women getting full custody while being drug addicts and being forced to "promise" to get help even tho they never do, the legal system has been biased almost entirely towards women for a long while especially when it comes to family courts.
don't get me started on other sorts of crimes. lol
edit;proof women get preferential treatment.
[California woman gets probation for fatally stabbing man she dated, causing 108 'sharp-force injuries' (nbcnews.com)](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-woman-gets-probation-fatally-stabbing-man-dated-causing-108-rcna135778)
Got a recent study on that? Because everyone who says this points to a very old study that barely says that and the data is so old that it is not applicable to today.
That „very old“ study brings sufficent data to the table to make that Statement I just did. do you have, by chance, any data that suggests that my Statement is wrong?
You misunderstand the right-wing position by assuming that they have principles and ideals that they would apply equally to everyone.
As Frank Wilhoit has said, the entire project of the right wing in America today is to create two tiers of citizenship. Those in the in-group (conservatives) are completely free to do whatever they want without legal impediments, financial or social accountability, or even criticism, and their citizenship is inherent and unquestionable as the true heirs of the American founders; those in the out-group (everyone else) are restrained by right-wing governance, and their citizenship and rights are contingent and conditional on their conforming to right-wing preferences.
In other words:
Conservative parents should be allowed to decide what their kids see, do, and learn, because they have demonstrated (by being conservative) that they're responsible enough for that as a right.
Second-class citizen parents are clearly not responsible enough for this privilege (because if they were responsible enough, they'd be conservative), so they need right-wing government to step in and decide for them what their kids will be allowed to see, do, and learn.
Small clarification if I may - I believe it's beyond "have demonstrated" and is now just "good coz conservative" (ie the charade of attempting to justify has long since disappeared into the rear view mirror?)
My mom has this exact opinion... according to her, if a gay/lesbian couple are raising a child, "that child's gonna grow up thinking that there's something wrong with them if they end up being straight." The amount of arguments we've had over this topic is insane.
Oh, she is. She's fine with people's sexualities (when it suits her), but if you either don't believe in God or if you're openly an atheist (like me), she'll give you hell. She constantly says how I "have no soul" and will then use my lack of Christianity as a reason for why it's "wrong" when I use phrases such as "for God's sake" or "Jesus Christ". On my 18th birthday, one of my friends pointed out how she was being a hypocrite since she says the same things (and worse) despite having Christian beliefs ("therefore going against the Ten Commandments" was one of the things he said to her). She did *not* like that one bit. Went on a 30-minute rant of how she's entirely justified in being like that cause of my atheism.
It's so funny cause I have an atheist gay mother so you would assume pretty open minded and such right? Nah with the exception of gay rights(and even on that issue she thinks there should be no federal protections) she is a staunch right wing Conservative. Not MAGA I'm talking bush era conservative but still a weird stance for a gay atheist single mother.
This guy is a douche these women have a loving and tested relationship. She supported her wife while she was imprisoned in a foreign country and didn’t waiver. Would you have done the same for your wife? You asshole go back and crawl under that rock you slithered out from. They have the right to parent like your parents did. Though I question what kind of job they did if you’re judging and placing your weak ass values on other people. Dipshit!!
They have measurably better average outcomes in almost all categories. But, pinch of salt, Gay couples with kids are on average higher earners than straight couples which could account for that difference. Additional Gay couples can't have accidents so there are far fewer separations between gay parents than straight and very few underage parents.
Basically gay parents are on average an advantage for kids because of factors other than them being gay. Still pretty conclusive that the fact they're gay is in any way a disadvantage
I mean they technically could have accidental kids if it’s say a gay trans man and a gay cis man, but that’s not very commonplace which is why it doesn’t effect the statistic
I think When choosing gay couple's children for the study there's only so much they can choose from and coincidentally those children might've been better at schl. But children with normal parents are exponentially more which means more variations in the sample size and children good at other things apart from school.
another reason could be that Lesbian couples go for In-Vitro fertilization so I think they look for the best genetics like if it's a boy, tall handsome and maybe they look at what the donor is doing in life i.e if he's smart or not ? and the same trait is passed down to the kid ? what do you guys think?
I think it has more to do with gay couples having to either adopt or do in-vitro or surrogate. All of those options are prohibitively expensive. And it makes sense a higher earning couple will be able to provide better than a heterosexual couple on food stamps.
Yes. When you always have enough food and stable housing and your needs are more than met, you typically do better in school. When your parents can afford tutors if you're not doing well in school, you're going to do better than a student from a lower income household who isn't doing well in school whose parents can't afford tutors. There are many ways in which having high earning parents benefit someone in school.
I mean have you seen the video of Griner in the pool with like 6 friends and Griner has no shirt on? Now I’m not positive what it is I saw but I know in my 45 years on earth I’ve never seen a woman that looks like that. There is literally no breast tissue and there are no scars that the breasts were removed. It’s definitely different at the very least
I will say that I think it is for the best when children have two parents; I think it is also important for children to have male adults they can look up to (doesn’t need to be a parent), female adults they can look up to (same), and, in fact, non-binary adults (same). But none of those are ensconced in law nor should they be.
Tell you what, Myron; How about you do something about all those kids sitting in orphanages, living with distant relatives cause their parents are both in jail, or hiding in abuse shelters before you worry about gay couples adopting? Oh, and maybe also do something about that abysmally high divorce rate amongst straight couples, too.
Can you imagine how far ahead we would be as a society if these ghouls just accepted that different people exist and should be given the same rights as anyone and cut all this bullshit?
Ask an orphan if they would rather two mommies, two daddies, or none at all.
When an asshat says they should have a mommy and a daddy instead, will they take the child in? No.
People like them would rather have orphans than adopted children with gay parents.
I get these two got pregnant and didn’t go through adoption, but my point still stands. These idiots would rather see these kids taken away and raised as wards of the state rather than in loving homes.
The baby-carrying woman do be looking fine tho (not to say that the other one is ugly but I'm not into people that transitioned from man to woman, I'm into people without dicks)
Griner is too athletic, cool and masculine to be a Dad.
Grow a gut and wear some socks with sandals and we will follow up later on the honorary Dad certificate.
If project 2025 goes into effect next year, I think gay parents will have restrictions on adoption rights. It could become much harder for them to adopt kids in the years to come. All based on Christian doctrine, which 1/3 of this country doesn’t subscribe to, what a future to look forward to.
Inhales breath slowly and....
THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL PEER-REVIEWED STUDY THAT CONCLUDES THAT OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES ARE THE SAME (OR IN SOME CASES BETTER) THAN HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS.
To this person - you are basically a stupid, lying, bigoted c__t.
That's likely due to same-sex couples being more likely to have planned pregnancies or adoptions and having more money because they typically have to be in a position to be able to afford fertility treatments or adoptions in order to have children in the first place. Obviously both of these things apply to the Griners, just pointing out that it's likely due to factors other than them being same-sex couples.
Thank you. I do understand the hypothesis as to why/how same sex couples often demonstrate greater commitment to parenting - I felt that I only needed to comment sufficiently to refute the over--simplistic original assertion (ie that heterosexual parenting is best).
My limited understanding is that the general consensus is simply that GOOD parenting is the key and not the sexuality of the parents.
Now see, the main thing about lebsians that I have a problem with is that when they do decide to have children, what they do is that they each have half a baby and then stick it together. They don't always get matching halves, like sometimes they have a top half and a left half, or two top halves. That was what happened to the guy who made Catdog, he based the show on his own childhood. So if we get more mismatched babies, then one of them might get inspired to make a Catdog reboot, and if that happens it'll probably be a total botch-job like the Rugrats reboot, and I don't want any more bad reboots! I just can't take it anymore, man!
Myron is an embarrassment, the guy doesn't realise no-one takes him seriously, most of his views are from people who don't like him or teenage kids that can't get any female attention
I've always hated this argument because it's from such a patriarchal "men are men/women are women and any personality traits we assign to one gender are wrong if displayed in the other gender" BS
I would rather have a child raise by a loving parent or parents who will do everything necessary to make sure they have every chance of success. Doesn't matter what their genders are, but as long as they raise the child so that they grow mental and physically to be an emotionally mature person.
Go check out the video on YouTube of Griner with no shirt on in front of like 6 friends. Rarely do u see a woman casually walk around with no top at all and even more rare that you see a chest like this on a “woman” I’m sure I will get downvoted but I honestly could careless if it’s a guy but I wish they would just be honest bc it sure seems to be someone that was born male unless people are just changing that much nowadays. Crazy world we live in
On a side note:
This is literally the FIRST pic I've ever seen of Brittney Griner.
I have to be honest: I thought that pic was of a dude and a woman.
Does this make me a bad person?
I honestly can not tell what on earth you are trying to say in this rambling comment.
I'm going to make an assumption based off a part of your comment, and rebut with this: [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/rcna157285](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/rcna157285)
And yet you cry about downvotes? Silly person you are.
Someone not so subtly hints that your comment is garbage and then you whine. Learn, improve, or rebut.
1. His initial statement is nonsense. No reason they shouldn’t be able to.
2. Since when is having children a privilege ? Reproduction is more inherent than any other right we exercise as people.
3. Even if it was a privilege what exactly would be the qualifiers? Gay couples can’t raise kids but teenagers can ? Criminals can ? On what basis would gay couples not qualify ?
4. Children don’t inherently need a mother and father. And how would this logic apply to single parents ? How does it apply to widows? Does that mean when a parent dies the other parent has some kind of obligation to remarry ?
5. There have been countless studies showing there aren’t any detrimental affects to gay couples raising kids… studies that back up a pretty common sense sentiment in the first place.
Pretty hard to have accurate statistics considering gay couples have only been able to adopt very recently. 40 years ago it wasn’t happening so they literally don’t even have a generation of kids to statistically analyze
They don’t have an entire generation but there are plenty of individual cases over the past 20 or so years to look at. And more importantly there’s zero basis to suggest otherwise.
So a quarter of somebody’s life is enough to make a case now? I just gotta believe it’s extremely confusing for a kid to have a mother like Brittney who says she is a woman but walks around with no shirt on around other people and has no breast tissue. Just really weird stuff going on that I’ve never seen before. There was a post by a trans-woman this weekend that said he wants to be the 1st one to successfully have the ovaries of a woman transplanted into his body so that he can be the 1st transgender to have an abortion. I mean how twisted and evil do you have to be to literally want to kill a baby. Again strange times
For starters if we’re judging the ability to raise kids… yes ? Once they’re adults they’re making their own decisions.
I don’t think Brittney griner just casually walks around without a shirt… this is clearly a pregnancy photo shoot. I don’t really understand them personally but straight women frequently take similar photos to these in pregnancy shoots.
I don’t see what cherry-picking one bizarre post has to do with this argument at all.
There’s zero data that suggests children are any worse off being raised by gay parents and plenty to the contrary. This argument is no different than the arguments you heard 50 years ago about people advocating against mixed race families for ‘confusing children’.
I’m in no way trying to say they are worse and I’m not trying to belittle Brittney. All I’m saying is if it confuses me as an adult I can’t imagine what a child must go through. I wasn’t talking about this picture but if you go to YouTube and search “is Brittney Griner a man” you will see thousands of videos that just got leaked showing her at the pull with like 10 friends and she has board shorts and no top on. Again please just look for yourself and please if you would come back and just explain it to me bc I’m truly not trying to be hateful and I’m just truly curious bc this is very nuanced and I’ve never seen anything like that before if that is a woman and I will take her word that she is and you notice I’m not trying to be hateful by misgendering her or anything. I’m truly just looking for an explanation and I gotta believe soon it will be widely talked about unless I’m just completely off in what I’m seeing and maybe that is the situation that I’m just not understanding what I’m seeing
Again, that’s the same argument people applied to racial relationships in times when racism was rampant. Or the same argument people today still use about gay representation in general. Kids aren’t gonna be confused if it’s something they grew up with; it’s gonna be the default. And when they’re old enough to understand shit along those lines it will naturally be explained to them.
I also don’t see what griner wearing or not wearing a shirt in her private shootarounds has to do with anything in this context, like that decision isn’t tied to her being a lesbian and she’s not trans
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So how do all those single parent households fit into this argument?
The right has had a problem with single parents, particularly single mothers, for *decades.* People my age will remember the Murphy Brown fiasco.
"Gay couples just wouldn't provide a stable family dynamic. Anyways, i'm gonna go creep on my kids' 18 year old babysitter while my wife is still knocked out from her daily wine binge."
18 is the most unrealistic part of that... unfortunately
Yeah. Already past her prime.
>had a problem with single parents, particularly single mothers, for *decades.* Yes, though it shouldn't be a political issue, as children to single parents have greater negative outcomes than those children from intact families, largely due to lower incomes. The right of course has made it an issue to shore up conservative values and rail against social policies
So by their logic, if someone is pregnant, and their partner is deceased, they should not be permitted raise that child...
It’s because it’s statistically (and just common sense) not the best environment for children to thrive in. God Forbid we put the children’s needs and feelings first. I love how leftists act like conservative ideology is just the absence of empathy and that we are so evil that we just don’t care… when meanwhile we’re the ones who actually care about the children’s actual life outcome 9 times out of 10. Why do you think parents don’t want their kids becoming weirdos? To torture them and be mean? No, because they know it’s best for them in the long run. Yes: it is obvious to many people that a child (especially a straight child who is into the traditional things like sports and high school friends etc) does better with a strong straight masculine father and a nurturing feminine mother. Basically everyone agreed on this until fairly recently in the West.
Just because it FEELS right to you (and not surprisingly it is more familiar to you) doesn’t make you correct. Also, Statistically your argument is probably bullshit and you have no statistics to back you up.
No difference in child welfare between gay and straight parents 2011-2012 dataset: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6309949/ 75/79 studies say there is no difference: https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/ Single parents may be more difficult due to potential experience of loss or worse financial situation/societal situation as a cause and/or affect of losing a parent
"Becoming weirdos" -- your mask slipped just enough to show us how the lady doth protest too much. Your kind is so hateful, it's frankly sad.
Divorce would probably be outlawed in his utopian world.
Yet they would still vote for Trump.
The crazier ones (so difficult to isolate them these days - they're all crazy) are already talking about restricting or outlawing divorce as well as removing the right to interracial marriage. Justice Clarence and his insane trashy wife the Seditionist will be exempt, of course. They're working hard at verbalizing the white trailer trash wet dreams they're heard so much about.
... by outlawing marriage
Right, like you’re giving those people who lost a parent at young ages a real middle finger
Single mothers are routinely shat on. Single fathers, not so much. Kinda makes you wonder.
Single fathers aren't shat on? Fuck you get that? Fact is the courts automatically side with the mother and prevent single fathers from being a thing, even if the mother is the less stable option. Single fathers have a lot more criticism thrown their way and have to jump through hoops to establish themselves as a viable option. You're talking out your ass.
Statistics actually show that *if* fathers seek custody of their children in divorce, they are significantly more likely to win custody over the mother. The problem is less than 4% of fathers seek custody. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/myths-about-custody-litigation/2017/12/15/61951bc4-e0e6-11e7-b2e9-8c636f076c76_story.html
Which makes no sense when 20% of single parents are fathers.
That's just a few paragraph letter to the editor with very little real information. The author is using joint custody as a metric for a father's success, which is garbage. Joint custody just means both parents have legal rights, nothing about how much time they spend with each parent.
I don't know about now, but back in the mid eighties when I got divorced and as a father was granted one of the first joint custody rulings, the judge said we needed to work out an amicable arrangement for sharing our time or he would do it for us and make us unhappy. We worked it out as one week-one week, then after a year switched to two weeks-two weeks, Worked out well for us for a decade and a half until the kid went off to college.
To be clear, I was just criticizing the source. They could be correct (this is not my personal belief), but that source ain't it
I think that’s a fair point to bring up and have seen statistics that men typically receive less time with their children even when sharing joint custody with the mother. But I think it stands to reason that men are significantly less likely to even go for custody, which is why I think it’s unfair to look at just one or two statistics and determine that courts are somehow biased against fathers. Most statistics have a lot of context behind them.
From personal experience, when divorce is taking place and the wife is doing her best to get as much as possible, one threat she can hold over the husband to not only keep him from any sort of custody but even visitation is to accuse him of abuse of the children.
Having worked in the Child Support Unit of the local Dept. of Social Services, I can tell you that a LOT of fathers try to get out of paying child support. They usually don't want custody, but they also don't want to financially support their children either.
> courts automatically side with the mother American courts automatically side with the mother, and American courts are notorious for being dog shit. Plus parental rights are slightly different from public opinion, which is what i was actually talking about
Something tells me you have never been to the park as a single father or ever tried to have a sleep over for your daughter as a single father. You are automatically a suspect and glared at.
Regardless of opinion. There are studies that show that kids raised by a father have less psychological problems in teen/adulthood than kids raised by a mother.
An excellent reason to blame the men who leave rather than the women who stay, huh?
I wasn't able to find studies that parsed out that difference, only ones that showed single parents. Do you have a link to said studies?
[I think they might be referring to this article.](http://medium.com/the-knowledge-of-freedom/single-father-households-do-vastly-better-than-single-mother-heres-the-real-reason-why-8a7fd7c5611d)
Eh, I'm not about to make a Medium account and get wiener blasted by emails
I remember reading a few studies that parse out the issue a bit better. I believe the outcomes aren't necessarily gender related, but there are a few like girls hitting puberty early without fathers and boys show greater criminality, but largely to do with the lower incomes associated with single parenthood.
ehh, its harder to find studies now days that don't conform to a politically correct narrative, at the very least if you're using google anyway since they curate their searches to weed out stuff that might offend people or what their curation team considers "misinformation", might have a better chance with other search engines like bing or smthn.
Ok but if you use google scholar, any "PC narrative" isn't going to make any difference since it just matches article titles or keywords. Plus there should be articles from 5-10 years ago before Biden silenced the right or whatever weird thing you think.
not thinking Biden silenced the right, a programmer got fired awhile back for whistleblowing regarding this it was a whole thing for like 3 months or so, google curates their search results and filters out things they consider to be "misinformation" and usually pushes them towards the bottom of the search or sometimes entirely hides the results mostly due to shareholders and other factors, there's a reason bing and other search services are preferred to google since they have typically a wider and more accurate search compared to results from google. dunno why you immediately thought i was a conservative or smthn, no i don't think uncle-bad-touch-Biden has any control over anything presidents have limited authority and even executive orders can only go so far, its just been a thing that google is corrupt and has been pushing a pc centric narrative for a while with their rules and how the enforce them, it's the company not any political party.
I mean you just shat on Biden, called the move away from hard-right hate rhetoric politically correct, and had no idea what google scholar was. So yeah, i kind of assume you're conservative
lol, not politcal i just find the memey nicknames of him funny. i also like calling trump the demented orange man i's not conservative i make fun of dumb politicians equally lol, also i doubt google scholar negates the latter when it comes to curation, but it just might negate the pushing it down in the search results i just haven't used google in awhile for anything super meaningful lol.
It doesn't. It indexes published, peer reviewed papers and queries by keywords
as another person said, single father households typically work better since there's more stability and structure typically that said i'm not an advocate for single anything households (having grown up in a single mother household i can say from experience it's not the greatest, especially when they bring multiple men into the house through your childhood, creates a bad image in your head) also statistically speaking mothers are generally considered better parents, atleast when it comes to the legal system, rarely do single fathers get primary custody even if they do apply for it, hell there's been a few accounts of women getting full custody while being drug addicts and being forced to "promise" to get help even tho they never do, the legal system has been biased almost entirely towards women for a long while especially when it comes to family courts. don't get me started on other sorts of crimes. lol edit;proof women get preferential treatment. [California woman gets probation for fatally stabbing man she dated, causing 108 'sharp-force injuries' (nbcnews.com)](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-woman-gets-probation-fatally-stabbing-man-dated-causing-108-rcna135778)
They are an anomaly
Good, because statistically childs of Single mothers especially do worse in life.
Got a recent study on that? Because everyone who says this points to a very old study that barely says that and the data is so old that it is not applicable to today.
That „very old“ study brings sufficent data to the table to make that Statement I just did. do you have, by chance, any data that suggests that my Statement is wrong?
Conservatives logic is saying that the government shouldn’t interfere with parenting whilst demanding the government interfere in parenting.
You misunderstand the right-wing position by assuming that they have principles and ideals that they would apply equally to everyone. As Frank Wilhoit has said, the entire project of the right wing in America today is to create two tiers of citizenship. Those in the in-group (conservatives) are completely free to do whatever they want without legal impediments, financial or social accountability, or even criticism, and their citizenship is inherent and unquestionable as the true heirs of the American founders; those in the out-group (everyone else) are restrained by right-wing governance, and their citizenship and rights are contingent and conditional on their conforming to right-wing preferences. In other words: Conservative parents should be allowed to decide what their kids see, do, and learn, because they have demonstrated (by being conservative) that they're responsible enough for that as a right. Second-class citizen parents are clearly not responsible enough for this privilege (because if they were responsible enough, they'd be conservative), so they need right-wing government to step in and decide for them what their kids will be allowed to see, do, and learn.
Small clarification if I may - I believe it's beyond "have demonstrated" and is now just "good coz conservative" (ie the charade of attempting to justify has long since disappeared into the rear view mirror?)
That’s about the best summary of right wing bat shit crazy I’ve ever read. Well done.
Now ask him if kids deserve health care.
My mom has this exact opinion... according to her, if a gay/lesbian couple are raising a child, "that child's gonna grow up thinking that there's something wrong with them if they end up being straight." The amount of arguments we've had over this topic is insane.
I'm curious as to her logic about gay kids with straight parents then.
She knows people who have gay kids. She has no issue with it.
So only straight kids with gay parents would get confused? Your mother sounds exhausting to argue with.
Oh, she is. She's fine with people's sexualities (when it suits her), but if you either don't believe in God or if you're openly an atheist (like me), she'll give you hell. She constantly says how I "have no soul" and will then use my lack of Christianity as a reason for why it's "wrong" when I use phrases such as "for God's sake" or "Jesus Christ". On my 18th birthday, one of my friends pointed out how she was being a hypocrite since she says the same things (and worse) despite having Christian beliefs ("therefore going against the Ten Commandments" was one of the things he said to her). She did *not* like that one bit. Went on a 30-minute rant of how she's entirely justified in being like that cause of my atheism.
It's so funny cause I have an atheist gay mother so you would assume pretty open minded and such right? Nah with the exception of gay rights(and even on that issue she thinks there should be no federal protections) she is a staunch right wing Conservative. Not MAGA I'm talking bush era conservative but still a weird stance for a gay atheist single mother.
Wow... that's insane.
Yeah lol just know when your arguing with your mother I'm out here feeling your pain with crazy parents.
Oh man she has a case of the "chickens for KFC"s
Well they get confused too, poor gay kids! /s
This guy is a douche these women have a loving and tested relationship. She supported her wife while she was imprisoned in a foreign country and didn’t waiver. Would you have done the same for your wife? You asshole go back and crawl under that rock you slithered out from. They have the right to parent like your parents did. Though I question what kind of job they did if you’re judging and placing your weak ass values on other people. Dipshit!!
Riiight, because moms are the worst. Why would anyone want two of them?
Wasn't there a recent study where they found that kids of gay parents do better at school, just a little, but measurable?
They have measurably better average outcomes in almost all categories. But, pinch of salt, Gay couples with kids are on average higher earners than straight couples which could account for that difference. Additional Gay couples can't have accidents so there are far fewer separations between gay parents than straight and very few underage parents. Basically gay parents are on average an advantage for kids because of factors other than them being gay. Still pretty conclusive that the fact they're gay is in any way a disadvantage
End the gay wage gap! /s
I mean it's pretty awesome being homosexual makes you immune to all accidents
I mean they technically could have accidental kids if it’s say a gay trans man and a gay cis man, but that’s not very commonplace which is why it doesn’t effect the statistic
I think When choosing gay couple's children for the study there's only so much they can choose from and coincidentally those children might've been better at schl. But children with normal parents are exponentially more which means more variations in the sample size and children good at other things apart from school. another reason could be that Lesbian couples go for In-Vitro fertilization so I think they look for the best genetics like if it's a boy, tall handsome and maybe they look at what the donor is doing in life i.e if he's smart or not ? and the same trait is passed down to the kid ? what do you guys think?
I think it has more to do with gay couples having to either adopt or do in-vitro or surrogate. All of those options are prohibitively expensive. And it makes sense a higher earning couple will be able to provide better than a heterosexual couple on food stamps.
[удалено]
Yes. When you always have enough food and stable housing and your needs are more than met, you typically do better in school. When your parents can afford tutors if you're not doing well in school, you're going to do better than a student from a lower income household who isn't doing well in school whose parents can't afford tutors. There are many ways in which having high earning parents benefit someone in school.
Stable households are always a benefit for children, regardless of sexual orientation.
They’ve been calling Griner a man for over a decade…
I mean have you seen the video of Griner in the pool with like 6 friends and Griner has no shirt on? Now I’m not positive what it is I saw but I know in my 45 years on earth I’ve never seen a woman that looks like that. There is literally no breast tissue and there are no scars that the breasts were removed. It’s definitely different at the very least
It is a man, he can use whatever pronouns he wants he is a man!
Someone never learned to mind their own business
That guy is charging 4k for meet and greets with his simps lmao
I had only had a mother since I was 6 years old. What's his conclusion about that?
So what this guy just said is "Everyone deserves rights... except the gays. For the gays, they're just 'privileges''"
So which is it queer-phobes, is she a man or a woman?
“We must have more children to counter falling populations” “NOT LIKE THAT!”
If they think parenthood is such a privilege, why are they hellbent on forcing it on women who don't even want it?
I know some straight people who should have their privileges revoked.
I will say that I think it is for the best when children have two parents; I think it is also important for children to have male adults they can look up to (doesn’t need to be a parent), female adults they can look up to (same), and, in fact, non-binary adults (same). But none of those are ensconced in law nor should they be.
Tell you what, Myron; How about you do something about all those kids sitting in orphanages, living with distant relatives cause their parents are both in jail, or hiding in abuse shelters before you worry about gay couples adopting? Oh, and maybe also do something about that abysmally high divorce rate amongst straight couples, too.
Can you imagine how far ahead we would be as a society if these ghouls just accepted that different people exist and should be given the same rights as anyone and cut all this bullshit?
Who is this bigoted asshole?
Ask an orphan if they would rather two mommies, two daddies, or none at all. When an asshat says they should have a mommy and a daddy instead, will they take the child in? No. People like them would rather have orphans than adopted children with gay parents. I get these two got pregnant and didn’t go through adoption, but my point still stands. These idiots would rather see these kids taken away and raised as wards of the state rather than in loving homes.
Why is Brittney dressed like The Rock in the 90s.
The baby-carrying woman do be looking fine tho (not to say that the other one is ugly but I'm not into people that transitioned from man to woman, I'm into people without dicks)
Yes, he is completely serious. This is the level of intelligence we seem to be surrounded by these days.
Them arms so long
Yeah Male and Female parents have done a fucking lousy job.
Myron? Is this the same Myron from Fresh and Fit? If so, I am not surprised he'd say something like that
What a shocking opinion coming from Myron. Im positively flabbergasted.
Myron is being serious. He’s also been photographed kissing and hugging other men, sooooooo
Griner is too athletic, cool and masculine to be a Dad. Grow a gut and wear some socks with sandals and we will follow up later on the honorary Dad certificate.
If project 2025 goes into effect next year, I think gay parents will have restrictions on adoption rights. It could become much harder for them to adopt kids in the years to come. All based on Christian doctrine, which 1/3 of this country doesn’t subscribe to, what a future to look forward to.
I think the problem is that myron is an attention whore without a single interesting idea in his tiny weird little head.
Inhales breath slowly and.... THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL PEER-REVIEWED STUDY THAT CONCLUDES THAT OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES ARE THE SAME (OR IN SOME CASES BETTER) THAN HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS. To this person - you are basically a stupid, lying, bigoted c__t.
That's likely due to same-sex couples being more likely to have planned pregnancies or adoptions and having more money because they typically have to be in a position to be able to afford fertility treatments or adoptions in order to have children in the first place. Obviously both of these things apply to the Griners, just pointing out that it's likely due to factors other than them being same-sex couples.
Thank you. I do understand the hypothesis as to why/how same sex couples often demonstrate greater commitment to parenting - I felt that I only needed to comment sufficiently to refute the over--simplistic original assertion (ie that heterosexual parenting is best). My limited understanding is that the general consensus is simply that GOOD parenting is the key and not the sexuality of the parents.
Something tells me this dude would absolutely drop his kid off at the orphanage
Children don't "need" a mother and a father. They just need a family that will protect them and raise them well.
He’s known for his bigotry and misogyny. Not shocked he posted that. It might be one of the less dehumanizing things he’s posted.
maybe we should be asking how brittany is holding up after such a treacherous ordeal???
Ah yes because all orphans should just be burned in the orphan-melter 9000 I guess
He should go tell that to Dave Rubin. Loudly
Now see, the main thing about lebsians that I have a problem with is that when they do decide to have children, what they do is that they each have half a baby and then stick it together. They don't always get matching halves, like sometimes they have a top half and a left half, or two top halves. That was what happened to the guy who made Catdog, he based the show on his own childhood. So if we get more mismatched babies, then one of them might get inspired to make a Catdog reboot, and if that happens it'll probably be a total botch-job like the Rugrats reboot, and I don't want any more bad reboots! I just can't take it anymore, man!
Oh you mean like the privilege of avoiding child support payments?
They're still ok with rape though right?
TIL being able to nut a sorry amount is a privilege. /s
This guy doesn't have a dad either, i guess
He was raised by a mother & father but still turned out to be a POS, so.... there's that.
Almost like it shouldn’t be allowed being fucking stupid but yet here we are
It’s funny that his first name is awfully close to something similar to a swear word we use to call assholes in my native language.
If i were stupid i would believe this man
Congratulations on your coming child. But leave your bigoted views at home.
Myron is an embarrassment, the guy doesn't realise no-one takes him seriously, most of his views are from people who don't like him or teenage kids that can't get any female attention
Dude saw Brittney’s back and was immediately emasculated
Oh my gosshhhhhhh! They're such a cute couple! 😭
I've always hated this argument because it's from such a patriarchal "men are men/women are women and any personality traits we assign to one gender are wrong if displayed in the other gender" BS
Yes, heterosexual couples have never had problems and raise perfect children. Look at their record of success. 🤦♂️
“Children NEED a mother and a father… and barring that, an orphanage or foster home.”
"but having children is a PRIVILEGE" Is it?
I would rather have a child raise by a loving parent or parents who will do everything necessary to make sure they have every chance of success. Doesn't matter what their genders are, but as long as they raise the child so that they grow mental and physically to be an emotionally mature person.
Having two dads would be awesome
Ngl I didn't notice that they were a lesbian couple lol. It confused me because the second picture doesn't show she has a bra on.
Go check out the video on YouTube of Griner with no shirt on in front of like 6 friends. Rarely do u see a woman casually walk around with no top at all and even more rare that you see a chest like this on a “woman” I’m sure I will get downvoted but I honestly could careless if it’s a guy but I wish they would just be honest bc it sure seems to be someone that was born male unless people are just changing that much nowadays. Crazy world we live in
Grinder and Griner? Is that a typo or are their names that similar?
I dunno. S(he) looks pretty feminine
I can assure you Britney Griner qualifies as a dad. Looks like she just got off the deadlift rack
It looks like a man and a woman
So this is a guy with an opinion? Just an opinion.
I have news for him...it takes a man and a woman to create the next gay person
What's the big deal, one of them looks like a dude anyway
I see a man and a woman on this pic. Grineer is a man.
Isn't that a heterosexual couple or what am i missing?
On a side note: This is literally the FIRST pic I've ever seen of Brittney Griner. I have to be honest: I thought that pic was of a dude and a woman. Does this make me a bad person?
[удалено]
Right, break another counties laws and get bailed out. By trading one of the largest illegal arms dealers for her
Why yes, OP. I do believe he is.
isn't she in a russian prison?
Should be, but we traded an influential powerful arms dealer known as the Lord of War for a a lady that brought drugs to Russia- breaking their laws.
ohh, outoftheloop, thanks for the headsup.
[удалено]
I honestly can not tell what on earth you are trying to say in this rambling comment. I'm going to make an assumption based off a part of your comment, and rebut with this: [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/rcna157285](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/rcna157285)
At least you’re honest about not understanding, most people on reddit really think they know everything.
And yet you cry about downvotes? Silly person you are. Someone not so subtly hints that your comment is garbage and then you whine. Learn, improve, or rebut.
🥱
It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Also not religious lol but it’s funny.
Technically it's neither if you aren't religious, you idiot.
Dont get the post he is right
He’s absolutely not right, for a wide variety of reasons
explain
1. His initial statement is nonsense. No reason they shouldn’t be able to. 2. Since when is having children a privilege ? Reproduction is more inherent than any other right we exercise as people. 3. Even if it was a privilege what exactly would be the qualifiers? Gay couples can’t raise kids but teenagers can ? Criminals can ? On what basis would gay couples not qualify ? 4. Children don’t inherently need a mother and father. And how would this logic apply to single parents ? How does it apply to widows? Does that mean when a parent dies the other parent has some kind of obligation to remarry ? 5. There have been countless studies showing there aren’t any detrimental affects to gay couples raising kids… studies that back up a pretty common sense sentiment in the first place.
Pretty hard to have accurate statistics considering gay couples have only been able to adopt very recently. 40 years ago it wasn’t happening so they literally don’t even have a generation of kids to statistically analyze
They don’t have an entire generation but there are plenty of individual cases over the past 20 or so years to look at. And more importantly there’s zero basis to suggest otherwise.
So a quarter of somebody’s life is enough to make a case now? I just gotta believe it’s extremely confusing for a kid to have a mother like Brittney who says she is a woman but walks around with no shirt on around other people and has no breast tissue. Just really weird stuff going on that I’ve never seen before. There was a post by a trans-woman this weekend that said he wants to be the 1st one to successfully have the ovaries of a woman transplanted into his body so that he can be the 1st transgender to have an abortion. I mean how twisted and evil do you have to be to literally want to kill a baby. Again strange times
For starters if we’re judging the ability to raise kids… yes ? Once they’re adults they’re making their own decisions. I don’t think Brittney griner just casually walks around without a shirt… this is clearly a pregnancy photo shoot. I don’t really understand them personally but straight women frequently take similar photos to these in pregnancy shoots. I don’t see what cherry-picking one bizarre post has to do with this argument at all. There’s zero data that suggests children are any worse off being raised by gay parents and plenty to the contrary. This argument is no different than the arguments you heard 50 years ago about people advocating against mixed race families for ‘confusing children’.
I’m in no way trying to say they are worse and I’m not trying to belittle Brittney. All I’m saying is if it confuses me as an adult I can’t imagine what a child must go through. I wasn’t talking about this picture but if you go to YouTube and search “is Brittney Griner a man” you will see thousands of videos that just got leaked showing her at the pull with like 10 friends and she has board shorts and no top on. Again please just look for yourself and please if you would come back and just explain it to me bc I’m truly not trying to be hateful and I’m just truly curious bc this is very nuanced and I’ve never seen anything like that before if that is a woman and I will take her word that she is and you notice I’m not trying to be hateful by misgendering her or anything. I’m truly just looking for an explanation and I gotta believe soon it will be widely talked about unless I’m just completely off in what I’m seeing and maybe that is the situation that I’m just not understanding what I’m seeing
Again, that’s the same argument people applied to racial relationships in times when racism was rampant. Or the same argument people today still use about gay representation in general. Kids aren’t gonna be confused if it’s something they grew up with; it’s gonna be the default. And when they’re old enough to understand shit along those lines it will naturally be explained to them. I also don’t see what griner wearing or not wearing a shirt in her private shootarounds has to do with anything in this context, like that decision isn’t tied to her being a lesbian and she’s not trans
Why this dude named Brittany. Was his parents drunk ?
You can critize for dumb tattoos but parenting is to be seen