More on “lesbian fathers”
CommentsFannie of Fannie’s Room posted some good questions about my statement that lesbians can be good mothers, but not good fathers. Her incisive attempt at creating greater clarity on this important issue is impressive. I thought I’d respond to her here:
I’ve heard this argument before,
Damn, I thought I coined that phrase myself. Oh, well.
but in my humble opinion it’s never been explained adequately. Maybe you can do better than others who’ve tried. First off, where is your scientific evidence demonstrating this?
Well, here is the first part of our crossed-wires problem. I mean my statement primarily ideologically, and so I don’t need to prove it with research and studies. My statement reflects deep moral and social beliefs that don’t need to be defended with studies anymore than my belief that democracy is the best political system. On the other hand, when an LGBT person says “Lesbians can be as good parents as heterosexual couples,” they are perhaps making an ideological statement about their beliefs, but in my experience they often point to the research, which means they are making an academic/scientific point as well. So for your side to “prove your point” you may have to defend your science and your ideology, whereas I (believe that I) only have to defend my ideology.
Specifically, I’m wondering what are the specific characteristics of “fatherhood” that a woman could not possibly perform? And, what are the specific characteristics of “motherhood” that a man could not perform?
Great question, and one that isn’t easy to answer. I believe there ineffable aspects of malehood and femalehood that we learn best from our mothers and our fathers. For example, a father is often best placed to teach his daughter about men, particularly as she begins to date. Sure, a father could teach his daughter about her period, but that conversation is often a unique bonding moment between mother and daughter that I believe is just not replicated by an eleven-year-old girl sitting down with her two Dads and a diagram. Those are just two examples.
Your claim seems to rest upon very rigid and inflexible notions of gender roles that, in my experience, do not exist. Rather, there is great overlap between male/female and scientists have as of yet been hardpressed to identify strictly male or strictly female characteristics.
Again, your comments tend toward clarity on both sides, and I appreciate that. I believe in traditional, but not inflexible, gender roles. Your comments suggest that if scientists find something is “natural” for one sex, then that is a “male” or “female” characteristic - and since science aren’t finding such characteristic, everybody should express only those behaviors that they happen to like. I don’t agree. I think it’s good for parents to encourage their boys to be strong and their girls to be nurturing, for example, all the while being generally accepting of children who also express traits usually associated with the other sex. I hope you can see that I’m not just being ignorant, I’m expressing my values when I choose to raise my kids (if any) with traditional sex roles, and when I hope society rewards families that have what I consider to be the ideal arrangement for raising children with the kinds of roles our society has valued (with some variations) for centuries.
I am well aware that your religion teaches that men and women have certain roles, but I see those roles as creations of your religion, rather than as an accurate observation of reality.
What about the roles of children and adults? Are those a creation of our society or an accurate observation of reality? A post-pubescent 15-year-old “naturally” should have all the rights of an adult, yet our society, and our families, restrict him or her in various ways. You might argue, but those restrictions aren’t arbitrary. I would argue that gender roles aren’t arbitrary either, especially when it comes to childbearing, which only a woman can do.
I am willing to concede that we don’t know whether a woman could be “as good a father” as a man could be. Taking your statement to its logical conclusion, are you willing to concede that, given the lack of info, a woman could actually be “as good a father” as a man could be?
Yes. If I saw a fair, impartial, replicated study (perhaps one that both liberals and conservatives helped design) that showed that on gender-related identity and role issues (especially) women parents do (not could) perform just as effectively as fathers do, for both boys and girls, I would have to admit I am wrong on this issue, and I would have to find a different reason to base my (secular) opposition to same-sex marriage. I doubt that would happen, but yes, I would drop this argument in that case.
David,
Thanks for addressing my response in a meaningful way. I’m really trying to better understand your argument, as I have seen others make variations of it, and your response has given me better insight. The way I see it, the point of same-sex marriage is not to say that fathers (or mothers) are irrelevant, but to say that we are all way more alike than we are different. And so, while it might be awkward for a father to discuss menstruation with his daughter, I think that it can be (and is) done in a healthy, positive, fulfilling manner.
I appreciate that you clarified that you were making an ideological statement about women not being able to be “good fathers.” I wasn’t sure on whether you were making a scientific observation or stating your belief. As I’ve said before, I don’t believe that “traditional gender roles” exist in any real way. Gender roles have varied and fluctuated greatly throughout history and culture, so I’m not even sure what it would mean for a parent to teach a girl how to be a female or a boy how to be a male. And, I certainly don’t believe that certain characteristics (like nurturing, strength, etc) are inherent in one gender or the other.
Instead, like Judith Butler, I believe that it is society (and parents) who teach children how to be boys and girls. It sounds like you would agree that children are taught gender roles, yet you would take it step further and say that you believe that people should restricted to these roles for the good of society?
While these gender roles might bring order to society, many people are incapable of fitting into them. I’m sorry if this offends you, but it saddens me to think that you are harming yourself- your happiness- for what you believe to be the good of society. I appreciate that you want, like some “marriage defenders” only want the best for society, but it’s also my belief that (and I think you are in a unique position to recognize this) mandatory gender roles can be very damaging and harmful. For instance, for many people (and not just gays and transgender persons) gender roles are nothing more than stifling prisons and useless patterns that people are forced to act out because they are “men” or “women.”
I guess, I know in the core of my being that I am not inherently weak and submissive as some people say I am just because I’m a woman. As the failure to “fit” into one’s ordained gender role has been a great source of misery for so many, I do appreciate your willingness to tolerate children who show gender non-conformity. But I believe that the prevalence of women who, for lack of better phrasing, “act like men” perhaps illustrates that they could be just as good of fathers as men.
I’m sorry if this offends you, but it saddens me to think that you are harming yourself- your happiness- for what you believe to be the good of society.
This is an interesting remark. I think the clarification is important where Fannie states “your happiness” rather than “yourself” as what is potentially being “harmed…for what you believe to be the good of society.” As a male, I find that many of my tendencies and drives (e.g., sex drive, violent behavior, shooting guns, wasting time playing vid games, ridiculing people, lighting things on fire, etc.) have to be beaten out of me for the good of society. And I have to be the one to do the beating or else the police would and that wouldn’t help society out either.
Being a father of four sons helps a lot, of course, because I want them to learn how to, not just delay gratification, but find gratification in the correct way at the correct time. The best way to do this is by my own example, of course. If my kids see me goofing around with fire or playing games this will transmit an improper value to them.
BTW, I know a lot of people — esp. online — think I’m joking when I mention sacrificing destructive behaviors and selfish indulgences mentioned above, but I’m honestly not. For example, I really do love shooting my guns and I would every day if I let myself. I enjoy my life as a non-wild married man, but I am consicious of this as a sacrifice almost every day in some way, not just for societal good, but for my own as well. I think the gay/marriage debate needs to focus more on behaviors and what is best for society, sacrifice and rightly ordered love, rather than feelings and whether someone’s freedom of expression is getting crimped.
Pauli,
I appreciate your perspective.
Yet, I would argue that what you label as “male” drives are actually human drives that all people should discipline. I certainly hope you aren’t comparing homosexuality to “violent behavior, shooting guns, etc. If so, I don’t believe it is accurate to place homosexuality and so-called gender non-conformity into the same category of “selfish indulgences” that must be repressed for the good of society. We all know that we must repress certain drives or not indulge certain behavior. Yet, sexual orientation, for many of us, is much more complex than a mere behavior. It’s unfortunate that so many people focus on the sexual acts. For many, it’s a rejection of the idea of “traditional gender roles.”
I hope that one day David- a gay man- is able to have a happy, fulfilling life with a wife and children since that is his goal, but if all other gay people “sacrificed” and followed that model I really don’t think it would be “best” for society. When gay people sacrifice who they are and place themselves into little prisons- so to speak- of heterosexuality it can, actually, harm society, harm children, and destroy families. The reality that we all have to live with is that the heterosexual marriage thing and living according to “traditional gender roles” just aren’t for everyone. Honestly, I think our society is strong enough to handle individual freedom of expression in that way.
Fannie-
I’m really happy we’re having a meaningful conversation.
You wrote: “The way I see it, the point of same-sex marriage is not to say that fathers (or mothers) are irrelevant, but to say that we are all way more alike than we are different.”
I respect that and understand that. Most of my LGBT friends feel that way. I happen to disagree, and think that males and females are distinctly different. Now, the question becomes, is that a legitimate difference of opinion, or is my stance evidence of bigotry, homophobia, and even hate? I’m not talking about the yahoos you describe on your Web site who complain that gays are diseased etc. (and your side has yahoos too) . I’m talking about people like Maggie Gallagher, for example, for whom one of the primary reasons she supports restricting marriage to male-female couples is exactly this issue of the differences between the sexes, especially when it comes to parenting.
You write “yet you would take it step further and say that you believe that people should restricted to these roles for the good of society?” I certainly do not want legislation to that effect (with a few exceptions, like restricting women from combat). I also think that if LGBT parents and others want to teach their children to be “Free to Be You and Me,” they should be allowed to do so. I’m defending the legitimacy of me as a parent to raise my children with traditional gender roles, and my belief that whenever possible children should be raised in a family where they can learn traditional notions of how to be a man and how to be a woman. This doesn’t mean a little girl can’t play with a truck and a little boy can’t have a bake set. It does mean that on the whole it’s good for children to have both a mother and a father, and there is significant evidence that when they’re absent one or the other, they miss them.
You write “But I believe that the prevalence of women who, for lack of better phrasing, ‘act like men’ perhaps illustrates that they could be just as good of fathers as men.” I doubt that a butch lesbian could provide what a father provides. But there are many cases of double-femme couples these days (if not in the 1950s and 1960s) and I think it’s legitimate to be worried about them, too. Conversely to your point, there are straight couples with butch moms and/or femme dads, and I might be concerned about them. But I’m not. You and I would agree that there is a spectrum of ways to be a man and ways to be a woman (though your spectrum probably stretches further than mine does) and I’m comfortable with children learning from all kinds of Moms and Dads - as long as whenever possible they have one of each.
You write: “If all other gay people ’sacrificed’ and followed [David's] model I really don’t think it would be ‘best’ for society. When gay people sacrifice who they are and place themselves into little prisons- so to speak- of heterosexuality it can, actually, harm society, harm children, and destroy families. The reality that we all have to live with is that the heterosexual marriage thing and living according to “traditional gender roles” just aren’t for everyone. Honestly, I think our society is strong enough to handle individual freedom of expression in that way.”
I really don’t disagree with you here. I just don’t think that opinion necessarily has to lead to same-sex marriage. There are many other arrangements such a thing could lead to. I don’t believe in bringing back American sodomy laws, and i do believe in coming up with a mutual commitment plan so same-sex and other couples can gain the rights they don’t have that oppress them (and I do think some of our current laws oppress LGBT and other couples).
David,
Thanks for writing back.
I don’t believe that your opinion is based in hatred. I’m willing to accept that some marriage defenders genuinely have what they believe to be good reasons for wanting to restrict marriage to one man and one woman and that they’re not relying on hatred of gay men and lesbians.
I guess I see most of our disagreement in that you believe children require a mom and dad, and I don’t. And, same-sex couples are always going to exist and have children/families so I just don’t think they should continue to be legally penalized.
Have a happy new year!
Fannie, be someone gay or straight, the male sex drive “machinery” (hormones, organs, mind, etc.) is probably behind a lot of violent behavior as well as abusive sexual behavior. That’s really my point. Leave aside gay male relationships for a moment. To be perfectly candid, I would probably enjoy having sex with my wife more often than I do, but I have to take into consideration her feelings on the matter. This restriction of the appetite itself is a sacrifice for many men. That is why men have multiple girl-friends at a time or mistresses in addition to their wife, so they can increase their sexual activity. My view is that these men are hurting themselves in this way because even if immediate objectification of females does not occur, it does eventually. They look at these women as living blow-up dolls to help them jerk off. And this can’t be good for society.
So if David decides to make a sacrifice in regards to his sexual appetite, I think he’s doing what all men have to do to be good citizens. I don’t think orientation even needs to be taken into account for this statement to have meaning, but based on what I know, gay males have more sexual activity than straight couples for many reasons.
Quick illustration: I knew a guy who had had sex with probably multiple hundreds of women. He told me once “If I ever get married, I’m telling my wife up front that she better be ready to have a lot of sex.” How romantic, huh. That was 15 years ago; he’s 40 and not married yet, but he is paying child support for three kids to two separate women.
Kids need and deserve the balanced perspective of both a mother and a father — diversity, if you will.
How are two gay dads supposed to counsel their daughter after she is nearly date-raped on her first date? What will two lesbian moms say to their young son who starts locking the bathroom door for long periods, as his hormones take hold of his manhood?
Having no first-hand experience in these matters, the advice they offer — while well meaning of course — will be decidedly one-sided. Kids need and deserve both sides of the story from their parents.