Secular left woman mad because progressive men won’t protect and provide

There is so much that I would like to say about the video below. For me, it really captures what feminism has taught women about men and relationships. Traditional male roles are: protect, provide, lead on moral issues, lead on spiritual issues. Well, young college-educated single women are certainly interested in protection and provision, but they have zero interest in male leadership.

First, here is the video:

So, this is a young, college-educated, progressive woman. She looks to be about 29 years old. She’s probably been having a lot of fun in bars and night clubs, hooking up with hot guys and running up student loans for worthless non-STEM degrees. But 29 is the age when many young feminist women start to notice that their friends are getting married, and so they feel that it’s time for them to “keep up” with their friends by also getting married.

The woman in the video doesn’t want a man in order to help him with any of his problems. She doesn’t want a man because she likes the way he leads her or makes decisions. She wants to get married because she wants to help herself to what a husband offers. Specifically, she wants to help herself to money, ability to repair a car, ability to renovate a house, vacations, travel, social respectability, social status, etc. That’s what she wants. She doesn’t want obligations to a man or obligations to children. She wants what a man and children to benefit her.

So, what this woman in the video is really asking for is two of the four traditional male roles. She wants a man to do protecting and providing. But she has no interest in a man who has firm views on morality or religion. She wants a sperm-donor, an ATM, and a handyman. But she doesn’t want a man who is going to tell her to do anything for God, or for him, or for the kids. No interest at all in a man who will want to lead the family in a Bible study, or protest sex-selection abortions.  Religion and morality are disgusting to her – they’re brakes on her selfish pursuit of happiness. She likes men who let her make decisions, and who blame others when she is at fault. If babies get in the way of her career, he should approve of her killing them. If two men want to raise a motherless child bought from a surrogate, he should approve of that, too. She wants a man who will put his own kids in daycare and public schools so she can buy a Coach handbag and go on vacation in Barbados. Too bad for the kids. That’s what she wants in a man – “don’t judge”.

But the real key point in this story for me is how this woman expects a secular left man to respect moral obligations. A secular left man thinks that the universe is an accident, that human beings evolved from slime, and that humans have no free will.  Atheists don’t believe that God holds people accountable for their moral decisions. They think that morality is just a set of conventions that vary by time and place. On atheism, there are no moral absolutes, just conventions that vary by time and place. And atheists only follow those conventions if following them makes them feel good or look good to others during their lifetimes. They support transing kids because they want their college professor or their boss to like them. Who cares about what happens to those kids?

On atheism, morality is just agreeing with the people you want to like you. It’s not about taking self-sacrificial stands to protect the weak. Survival of the fittest. That’s what atheists believe in. And this woman thinks that she is going to find a man who will have moral obligations towards her when those obligations go against his self-interest. She doesn’t want any obligations to him, but she wants him to have lots of moral obligations to her. Absolutely insane.

She also thinks that a man who agrees with her on adult-first, kids-last policies is going to sign up for a lifelong, faithful, marriage commitment. These days, it’s hard to get even a good man to agree to take risks with feminist false accusations on college campuses, feminist divorce courts and feminist “me too” workplaces. But why would a man who has a secular leftist worldview want to sacrifice his own interests for such a risky enterprise? Today, only men have obligations. Women are always the victims of someone else. In any disagreement between a man and a woman, the man is always guilty, and the woman is always the victim. The whole society is set up to relieve her of any accountability for her actions. All the costs must be paid by men. Why would a secular leftist man – who has ZERO rational foundation for morality – get legally obligated to a woman who holds that much power over him?

The woman in the video probably thinks that when it comes to marriage, men will just marry when they are impressed with a woman’s appearance, and go crazy from being “in love”. That’s why secular left women spend so much money on their appearance – not just for make-up or clothes, but on manicures, pedicures, and cosmetic surgery, too. Only stupid men marry secular left women because they are “in love” with her fake appearance.

If the woman in the video is expecting a man to commit to her for life, and be faithful, and be a good father, then she’s going to have to 1) resign herself to male leadership – because that’s what good men want, and 2) upgrade her religious and moral views to match those of a good man. Otherwise, her situation is hopeless. Good men don’t get married to secular left feminists. As more young women adopt feminism, you can expect to see the marriage rate decline.

New study: children of same-sex parents have more emotional problems

I like to have all the research papers I need on hand to “show my work” to people who want to know why I have certain views on moral issues. This study entitled “Emotional Problems among Children with Same-Sex Parents: Difference by Definition” was published in the peer-reviewed journal “British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science” is good research.

Here’s what it says:

Aims: To test whether small non-random sample findings that children with same-sex parents suffer no disadvantage in emotional well-being can be replicated in a large population sample; and examine the correlates of any differences discovered.

A big sample size makes the study more reliable:

Methodology: Using a representative sample of 207,007 children, including 512 with same-sex parents, from the U.S. National Health Interview Survey, prevalence in the two groups was compared for twelve measures of emotional problems, developmental problems, and affiliated service and treatment usage, with controls for age, sex, and race of child and parent education and income. Instruments included the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and the Kessler Scale of Psychological Distress (SPD). Bivariate logistic regression models tested the effect of parent psychological distress, family instability, child peer stigmatization and biological parentage, both overall and by opposite-sex family structure.

This is the key part. “Emotional problems were over twice as prevalent… for children with same-sex parents than for children with opposite-sex parents.” That’s not what you’ll see on TV or in the corporate news media, but that’s what you find if you’re looking for peer-reviewed studies with good methodology and large sample sizes.

Results: Emotional problems were over twice as prevalent (minimum risk ratio (RR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-3.0) for children with same-sex parents than for children with opposite-sex parents. Risk was elevated in the presence of parent psychological distress (RR 2.7, CI 1.8-4.3, p (t) < .001), moderated by family instability (RR 1.3, CI 1.2-1.4) and unaffected by stigmatization (RR 2.4, CI 1.4-4.2), though these all had significant direct effects on emotional problems. However, biological parentage nullified risk alone and in combination with any iteration of factors. Joint biological parents are associated with the lowest rate of child emotional problems by a factor of 4 relative to same-sex parents, accounting for the bulk of the overall same-sex/opposite-sex difference.

And here’s the conclusion:

Conclusion: Joint biological parentage, the modal condition for opposite-sex parents but not possible for same-sex parents, sharply differentiates between the two groups on child emotional problem outcomes. The two groups are different by definition. Intact opposite-sex marriage ensures children of the persistent presence of their joint biological parents; same-sex marriage ensures the opposite. However, further work is needed to determine the mechanisms involved.

I blogged recently about another study that found other differences between the children of same-sex couples and the children of heterosexual couples.

From a public policy point of view, there are always going to be times where there is a conflict between the needs of small children, and the wants of selfish adults. In that case, I think we should side with the small children, since they are more vulnerable. It’s alarming to me to see many “conservatives” put the desires of adults over the needs of children. That doesn’t seem like a good position to take, morally speaking. Children do better when they are raised by a Mom and a Dad. We should pass laws to encourage grown-ups to live their lives in a way that they don’t harm children.

Study: children of naturally married couples outperform children of same-sex couples

Whenever I debate a controversial issue, I like to go straight to the studies in order to let the evidence speak for itself. Although it’s difficult to convince someone on the opposite side to change their mind, usually people in the middle will side with the person who has evidence, instead of the person who is crying the loudest and telling anecdotal stories that may or may even not be true.

The Public Discourse reports on a study out of Canada.

Excerpt:

A new academic study based on the Canadian census suggests that a married mom and dad matter for children. Children of same-sex coupled households do not fare as well.

There is a new and significant piece of evidence in the social science debate about gay parenting and the unique contributions that mothers and fathers make to their children’s flourishing. A study published last week in the journal Review of the Economics of the Household—analyzing data from a very large, population-based sample—reveals that the children of gay and lesbian couples are only about 65 percent as likely to have graduated from high school as the children of married, opposite-sex couples. And gender matters, too: girls are more apt to struggle than boys, with daughters of gay parents displaying dramatically low graduation rates.

Unlike US-based studies, this one evaluates a 20 percent sample of the Canadian census, where same-sex couples have had access to all taxation and government benefits since 1997 and to marriage since 2005.

While in the US Census same-sex households have to be guessed at based on the gender and number of self-reported heads-of-household, young adults in the Canadian census were asked, “Are you the child of a male or female same-sex married or common law couple?” While study author and economist Douglas Allen noted that very many children in Canada who live with a gay or lesbian parent are actually living with a single mother—a finding consonant with that detected in the 2012 New Family Structures Study—he was able to isolate and analyze hundreds of children living with a gay or lesbian couple (either married or in a “common law” relationship akin to cohabitation).

So the study is able to compare—side by side—the young-adult children of same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples, as well as children growing up in single-parent homes and other types of households. Three key findings stood out to Allen:

children of married opposite-sex families have a high graduation rate compared to the others; children of lesbian families have a very low graduation rate compared to the others; and the other four types [common law, gay, single mother, single father] are similar to each other and lie in between the married/lesbian extremes.

Employing regression models and series of control variables, Allen concludes that the substandard performance cannot be attributed to lower school attendance or the more modest education of gay or lesbian parents. Indeed, same-sex parents were characterized by higher levels of education, and their children were more likely to be enrolled in school than even those of married, opposite-sex couples. And yet their children are notably more likely to lag in finishing their own schooling.

[…]The truly unique aspect of Allen’s study, however, may be its ability to distinguish gender-specific effects of same-sex households on children. He writes:

the particular gender mix of a same-sex household has a dramatic difference in the association with child graduation. Consider the case of girls. . . . Regardless of the controls and whether or not girls are currently living in a gay or lesbian household, the odds of graduating from high school are considerably lower than any other household type. Indeed, girls living in gay households are only 15 percent as likely to graduate compared to girls from opposite sex married homes.

Thus although the children of same-sex couples fare worse overall, the disparity is unequally shared, but is instead based on the combination of the gender of child and gender of parents. Boys fare better—that is, they’re more likely to have finished high school—in gay households than in lesbian households. For girls, the opposite is true. Thus the study undermines not only claims about “no differences” but also assertions that moms and dads are interchangeable. They’re not.

With a little digging, I found the abstract of the study:

Almost all studies of same-sex parenting have concluded there is “no difference” in a range of outcome measures for children who live in a household with same-sex parents compared to children living with married opposite-sex parents. Recently, some work based on the US census has suggested otherwise, but those studies have considerable drawbacks. Here, a 20% sample of the 2006 Canada census is used to identify self-reported children living with same-sex parents, and to examine the association of household type with children’s high school graduation rates. This large random sample allows for control of parental marital status, distinguishes between gay and lesbian families, and is large enough to evaluate differences in gender between parents and children. Children living with gay and lesbian families in 2006 were about 65 % as likely to graduate compared to children living in opposite sex marriage families. Daughters of same-sex parents do considerably worse than sons.

The author of the study is a professor of economics at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. His PhD in economics is from the University of Washington. A previous study had shown that gay relationships typically have far more instability (they last for more shorter times). That’s not good for children either. Another study featured in the Atlantic talked about how gay relationships have much higher rates of domestic violence. That’s not good for children either. So we have three reasons to think that normalizing gay relationships as “marriage” would not be good for children.

The reason I am posting this is because I want people to understand why social conservatives like me propose these laws defining and promoting marriage. We do favor natural marriage for the same reason that we oppose no-fault divorce, and for the same reason why we oppose welfare for single mothers (it encourages single motherhood). We don’t want to encourage people to deprive children of their mother or their father. We look at the research, and we decide that children need their mother and father. Given the choice between the needs of the child and restraining the freedom of the adults, we prefer the child’s need for her mother and father. It’s not just arbitrary rules, there is a reason behind the rules.

But children are not commodities. They have certain needs right out of the box. Adults should NOT be thinking about how to duct-tape a child onto any old relationship that doesn’t offer the same safety and stability that opposite sex marriage offers. We should be passing laws to strengthen marriage in order to protect children, not to weaken it. Libertarians don’t want to do that, because they want adults to be free to do as they please, at the expense of children.  Libertarians think that the adults should be able to negotiate private contracts and have no obligations to any children who are present, or who may be present later.

Related posts