1st comment:
I completely agree with Miss C on that last comment. Our minds may be undeveloped in some ways when we are in out teens but only in terms of how we understand how our actions affect those around us (frontal lobe activity) if anything when we are in our teens or younger we are MORE highly aware of how our environment affects us. Also as we grow we learn how to function as a cog in the specific society we grew up in and have been affected more and have absorbed more of the culture we grew up in making younger people’s opinion on society far more subjective than that of adults.

2nd comment:
I do think that the entire situation of sperm donors (and even egg donors even though their procedures are much more invasive) getting paid for their gametes is a bit odd. It makes me a bit uneasy about the kinds of people who might donate to these banks and pass on their genetic information to some child they often don’t want their identity divulged to. Though I do understand that many of the ppl donating do so because they feel they are contributing to a cause, many donors also sign up for financial reasons. There is also the fact that some banks who claim to have the “best quality in human beings” for their donors will charge ppl more for their sperm and probably pay their donors more highly. so…. “Here you have perfect genes you are the cream of the crop of humanity please let us pay you large sums of money to have ppl raise your babies for you.” Though I don’t believe that donors have a moral responsibility to make sure their sperm doesn’t go to a single mom where the child will have no father, I do believe that the entire process creeps me out a bit and is a bit foggy morally considering it is such an odd situation.

3rd comment:
I’m 19 years old and have been a closet feminist for a long time
“no! femenists are whiny! I’m not a feminist! You teach ppl how to treat you! You don’t complain to them to do it! I’m not a feminist!” lol but I am a feminist and I love this site!! (just found it), because even though I still hold that beleif that we have to teach men how to treat us I don’t think that that idea is a huge part of the colective concience and I want to make it so! :D

1st comment:
I completly agree with Miss C on that last comment. Our minds may be undeveloped in some ways when we are in out teens but only in terms of how we understand how our actions affect those around uss (frontal lobe activity) if annything when we are in our teens or younger we are MORE highly aware of our our environment affects uss. Also as we grow we learn how to function as a cog in the specific scociety we grew up in and have been affected more and have absorbed more of the culture we grew up in making younger people’s opinion on society far more subjective than that of adults.

2nd comment:
I do think that the entire situation of sperm donors (and even egg donors even though their procedures are much more invasive) getting paid for their gametes is a bit odd. It makes me a bit uneasy about the kinds of people who might donate to these banks and pass on their genetic information to some child they often don’t want their identity divulged to. Though I do understand that manny of the ppl donating do so because they feel they are contributing to a cause, manny donors also sign up for financial reasons. There is also the fact that some banks who claim to have the “best quality in human beings” for their donors will charge ppl more for their sperm and probably pay their donors more highly. so…. “Here you have perfect genes you are the cream of the crop of humanity please let us pay you large sums of monney to have ppl raise your babies for you.” Though I don’t beleive that donors have a moral responsibility to make sure their sperm doesn’t go to a single mom where the child will have no father, I do beleive that the entire process creeps me out a bit and is a bit foggy morrally considering it is such an odd situation.

3 rd comment
I am the older between me and my sister and early on in my parents marriage, when my mom was pregnant with me, my father abused my mother physically. My mother stayed with my father so that my sister and I could have a “stable” home…..need I say more lol…. I never saw my father physically abuse my mother, and he was extremely passive agressive where she on the other hand would yell a lot. I would take his side all the time. I’d take her side now that I know, though I don’t think all the blame should be put on one of them now but I’m not speaking to my father anny longer (he’s bipolar and on a lot of meds and I just can’t handle it). There was a lot of negative energy in my house I couldn’t quite figure out that I could sense growing up that affected me very deeply. I don’t know how much I would have suffered from not having my father in my life and that of my mother and sister, but I’m pretty sure it would have been better than the life filled with tension caused by my mother’s grudging dependancy on my father, for a father figure for her children. I felt happiest with my mother and sister when we were living alone in a smaller town house after my parents’ divorce. I didn’t like it at all when we later moved in wiht my mother’s boyfriend, even though it was a larger house. I felt like she was doing the same thing all over again. I felt that she thought she needed a man most to be happy in life. I’m 19 right now and still living with them for a bit. When I asked her once out of a bit of anger and confusion “But WHY did you marry dad!!” (because I could always tell she resented him growing up) she broke down and said “My clock was ticking alright!!!” and I guess looking back on this now even though I am a bit uneasy with the moral concepts behind sperm banks, I wonder: why hadn’t she just gotten a donor?

I beleive that the single most important (and perhaps only) factor contributing to the happiness of a child is the happiness of their parrents, and that the child see the parent doing what brings them the most joy growing up. If the mother is working all hours because she has fun at her job and enjoys it then it’s good for the child. If the mother is begrudgingly doing this to take care of the child that is presenting a financial problem the mother can’t cope with or doing it as a means of escaping her children because she doesn’t enjoy them then though it may not be the mother’s fault it may have negative impacts on the children. I would never place blame on the mothers in the situation above all I’m saying is the happier you are and the more you take care of YOURSELF the better your children will learn to do the same and take care of themselves.

My immediate response is that you cannot outright dismiss a 12-17 year old’s opinion and want for a relationship with a father figure simply because they are ‘childlike and possess a childlike mentality’. The fact the those ‘children’ are HAVING those experiences are valid in and of themselves. They are their own sentiments, deep thoughts, ponderings, and so on. To say that by the time they are in their 20’s and 30’s and will therefore, get over it, is only trying to prove your point of view that they will one day realize that which they once thought is nonsense — which it is not. The larger point of the study is to deduce is children are truly happy with or without a biological father figure (or at least knowing him) and if you discount the 7% (which is a lot of ‘kids’ saying the exact same thing) that voiced their opinion and say ‘No, they are still kids, really…” you completely undermine what thought processes are going through their minds at the moment and invalidate them as people. There are many preteens and teens that are much more intelligent than some adults out there, and I would take caution to dismiss what they have to say simply because they are young. Them having many more years to go shouldn’t alter what they once felt when they were young either. I’m in my 20s and know I can get along without my dad but it never changed the fact that it hurt like hell he wasn’t aroud and that i was dying to meet him when i was much younger.

After delivery of course, do children need their biological mother?

Well, for optimal health most infants should be nursed. However, children can and do survive without nursing.

The nursing question aside, no, children don’t always need their biological mothers, any more than they always need their biological fathers.

It is a woman’s CHOICE to use the sperm to become a single mother. A male’s sperm can be used to produce a child within a heterosexual couple who need the material or gay couple who may need the material. So it is hard to place some ethical blame on the person donating the sperm outside the bounds of believing that donating sperm in general is unethical.

Why does this belief go completely unexamined? And while women donate eggs, the sperm donation angle is more interesting because people get VERY upset about women using donated sperm for single motherhood, yet never even consider the donors ethics. Even if we don’t consider that the donors are deliberately creating children for whom they will give no support, shouldn’t they be taken to task for facilitating the single motherhood the women are getting so bashed for?

I was taught in training that Boy Scouting has 8 different methods that are used to help the program meet its aims. One of these is “adult association”; the idea that young men (and young women, for that matter - the BSA has a co-ed program for young men and women ages 14 to 21) benefit by learning how to interact and work with a variety of adults. That includes the unit leaders and (in Boy Scouting) also Merit Badge counselors.

The latter is actually more interesting, in a way. Earning merit badges is a requirement for the higher ranks. The ideal is that the Scout decides what merit badge he wants to earn. Then he selects a name from a list of approved Merit Badge counselors (the BSA runs their name through a national service to make sure they have no record of any kind of violent or child-related offense), gets his Scoutmaster’s approval, calls the MB counselor up, makes an appointment, and generally manages the relationship until he’s earned the badge.

That’s the ideal. The reality when I tell people this is that about 70% of the time Mom (yes, always Mom, folks) says “Oh, no, you can’t expect him to do that?! He’s too shy. I’ll call up and make the arrangements.” No, Mom, that’s his job, not yours. It’s part of the program, just as important as whether he learns the subject matter. I’d say about 50% of the kids never actually get forced to do this; the mother takes over the whole process under the concept that her son can’t possibly be expected to deal with an adult stranger. They’re robbing their kids. Now, maybe that’s not the way it works in all areas, but that’s what I see, and I’ve had at least 150 kids go through my Troop in the last 10 years.

Now, I think that Mom and Dad definitely are to be in charge of determining what other adults their kids will have a relationship with, and have the final say in what their kids should be taught. But I think it’s essential that a child has relationships of various sorts (social, teacher-student, spiritual, etc.) with a variety of adults.

There is a big difference between implying that a biological opposite sex parent is necessary to prevent poor socialization/inadequate indoctrination into gender roles, etc., and admitting that **at times** children benefit most from their interactions with same sex role models.

I wouldn’t argue that a biological opposite sex parent is necessary. I would think that as long as there is both a male and a female parent in the home that are committed to loving and caring for the children there, it is sufficient. I would hold that children always benefit from having an interaction with a positive same-sex role model; positive meaning someone who loves the child and helps their development, as opposed to someone who abuses the kid.

It is my opinion that the majority of same-sex role models do more harm than good. Especially for boys being raised in a rape culture. When most men do not treat women as their social equals, it is highly dubious that they will teach boys otherwise. Which I think is one of the reasons we have the social fear of same-sex or single mother parenting: who’s going to teach all those young boys to denigrate women? who’s going to make sure those boys are manly? who’s going to make sure women don’t raise faggots and pussys?

I’m glad you labelled it your opinion; I wonder what evidence you have to back your opinion up. “Social fear” seems an odd turn of phrase.

It’s really a fear of cultural emasculation that fuels this cry for same-sex influence for boys. And yes, I do think it is *that* specific: boys. Very few arguments are made that girls will be harmed by single fathers or male same-sex parents — because it is understood that men *do* know how to successfully raise girls to be second class and less-than.

Seems to me that few arguments are made that girls will be harmed by being raised by single fathers because it’s non-controversial; it’s generally considered that an adult male trying to raise a female child on his own is not a good idea. There’s no need to raise a bunch of arguments against something when the general consensus agrees with the point that the arguments would be marshalled to support. Heck, most people would probably argue against an adult male raising a male child on his own.

After all, 1) there are so very few examples of it being tried, 2) people are much more sensitive to the issues that I raised in an adult male/child female situation (e.g., how does an adult male emphasize and establish communications with a female child going through puberty) and 3) people are much more worried about adult male/child female child abuse than in the opposite situation. I rather doubt that very many people consider it no problem, and I very much doubt that anyone at all considers it being no problem on the basis that “men *do* know how to successfully raise girls to be second-class and less-than.”

I grew up in a single parent household where my father left very early in my life, before my brother was born. It seems pretty natural that children would be curious about an absent biological father, especially given the emphasis we place on nuclear families. Kids grow up wanting to fit in and are acutely aware when something is different. The degree to which those children want to know is more dependent on the child and how big they perceive the gap to be. My brother, who constantly heard comments about how sad it was that he didn’t have a father around, was very interested in getting to know my father whereas I (as a girl who apparently didn’t need one) was not. Fairly or not, the social expectation that boys need a father and girls don’t tainted our desires to know our father. Does that mean that my brother suffered from not having our dad around? Knowing our father, probably not, but he did seek other male role models to learn from. And now all grown up, despite growing up “without a father” my brother is happily married and a wonderful father to two boys. In contrast, his brother in law grew up with both parents and is an indifferent father at best. Two parents do not guarantee a well-adjusted adult.

I think its important to remember that what kids need is love, nurturing, decent living conditions, guidance, rules and an array of adults to provide information and education on the possibilities of life. None of those things necessarily have to come from biological parents. While we have structured our society around the nuclear family, it is by no means the only method for raising children. To put it bluntly, there is no right or wrong way to make a family, at least in terms of the number and type of people that go into the equation. There is a requirement that the needs of the child be met, however you want to provide them.

:)

;)

;)

Yes, I want effective role models. No, I don’t think that biological father automatically = effective role model. Neither do I think that the nuclear family lends itself, first and foremost, to creating the most effective role models (from a feminist perspective). FWIW, I also don’t think that biological mother automatically = effective role model either.

When I speak of harm, I equate harm with furthering the interests of the patriarchy, with its concommittent double standards for girls/women. If boys continue to turn to men who are deeply entrenched in patriarchal standards of masculinity, the cycle doesn’t really end.

you may note from my post that I said “man” and “woman” and NOT “mother” and “father;” I’m not sure why/if you’re suggesting I was talking about the nuclear family? You said “I do not think that a child’s entire socialization needs to be guided by their biological or adoptive parents. “ and I pretty much agree with you.

There is a big difference between implying that a biological opposite sex parent is necessary to prevent poor socialization/inadequate indoctrination into gender roles, etc., and admitting that **at times** children benefit most from their interactions with same sex role models.

Hmm. I don’t think you need the person to be a parent. But I DO think that they need to be someone with a similar emotional closeness.

Nuclear families, as far as I’m concerned, do more harm by strictly categorizing children into gender roles that don’t fit them, but do serve the larger patriarchal good by creating our wonderful social hierarchy of boy and girl.

OK, I have to tweak you a little bit here: My daughters are girls because they have vaginas. If they had penises, they’d be boys. I don’t think that giving my kids up to be raised by my (married lesbian) sister, or my (single) brother, or anyone else for that matter, would change that fact…

It is my opinion that the marjoity of same-sex role models do more harm than good.
This is a half truth. As far as I can see from your posts here, it appears to be your opinion that the majority of PEOPLE do more harm than good. I don’t see why one would claim the interaction is more harmful merely because the recipient is the same sex…?

Especially for boys being raised in a rape culture. When most men do not treat women as their social equals, it is highly dubious that they will teach boys otherwise.
Absent the “rape culture” term, I agree. I don’t think this is specific to men though: You could also note that those men wouldn’t teach girls otherwise. And that women who have signed on to society’s problems won’t teach girls (or boys) otherwise, either.

Which I think is one of the reasons we have the social fear of same-sex or single mother parenting: who’s going to teach all those young boys to denigrate women? who’s going to make sure those boys are manly? who’s going to make sure women don’t raise faggots and pussys?
Now I think you’re projecting. The general fear of single parenting, AFAIK, is that you won’t have a good role model. As I discussed in my first paragraph, it’s pretty nice to have a role model of the same sex, when you’re growing up.

The role models don’t by any means have to be married to your parent, or be your parent, or live with you. But the reality is that a decent proportion of those role models ARE people’s parents, for better or for worse. And as a single parent, it seems more difficult (though by no means impossible) to find and provide a good role model if you don’t happen to have one handy in the next room.

It’s really a fear of cultural emasculation that fuels this cry for same-sex influence for boys.
Q, this is very odd. I have a feeling you’d be arguing against this no matter what./ These role models we’re talking about–do you think I’m suggesting that they promote the rape culture? Don’t you realize that a child of EITHER sex raised without proper role models will be MORE likely, not LESS likely to be a problem citizen?

If you think men are responsible for most of society’s ills–which apparently you do–then you should be supporting the push towards role models for boys as an effective way to improve things.

And yes, I do think it is *that* specific: boys. Very few arguments are made that girls will be harmed by single fathers or male same-sex parents — because it is understood that men *do* know how to successfully raise girls to be second class and less-than.
Actually, I think it’s mostly because the VAST majority of single sex parents are women.

Its specific to boys because there is an extremely high percentage of boys being raised without fathers (bio or not) or positive male role models available to them.

There is a big difference between implying that a biological opposite sex parent is necessary to prevent poor socialization/inadequate indoctrination into gender roles, etc., and admitting that **at times** children benefit most from their interactions with same sex role models. Nuclear families, as far as I’m concerned, do more harm by strictly categorizing children into gender roles that don’t fit them, but do serve the larger patriarchal good by creating our wonderful social hierarchy of boy and girl. It is my opinion that the marjoity of same-sex role models do more harm than good. Especially for boys being raised in a rape culture. When most men do not treat women as their social equals, it is highly dubious that they will teach boys otherwise. Which I think is one of the reasons we have the social fear of same-sex or single mother parenting: who’s going to teach all those young boys to denigrate women? who’s going to make sure those boys are manly? who’s going to make sure women don’t raise faggots and pussys?

It’s really a fear of cultural emasculation that fuels this cry for same-sex influence for boys. And yes, I do think it is *that* specific: boys. Very few arguments are made that girls will be harmed by single fathers or male same-sex parents — because it is understood that men *do* know how to successfully raise girls to be second class and less-than.

Q, do you subscribe to the concept that kids are often more comfortable discussing things with those who share, or seem to most easily understand, the condition being discussed…?

Under that concept, the issue isn’t necessarily the actual capabilities of the male or female role model in question. It’s also about the perceptions of the child.

Take two common teenage issues, for example: wet dreams and periods. Now, even though a woman might know all about wet dreams, or a man might know all about periods; even though both respective adults might feel perfectly comfortable discussing them, and be perfectly able to do so without making the kid in question feel uncomfortable…

Still, a 13 year old girl or boy is probably not going to take that chance. THAT is a big reason IMO that available same-sex role models are important. If they’re not talking to you in the first place, there’s not much role to model, if you catch my drift.

As RonF said, many of these single mothers, wanting what’s best for their children, do seek out experiences and activities that broaden their horizons, and otherwise compensate for their own shortcomings. This strikes me as wise.

I just have a lot of difficulty seeing why this is such a catastrophe, except among those who are primed to reject the reproductive freedom of women as a group.