[Closed] Tom Daleys a Dad, or is he?

 I have no doubt that two men are quite capapble of raising a child, but I also have a feeling of “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”

@trailwagger, guess who wrote that?  I'll give you a clue, you did.

So tell me how this isn't about same sex parenting and explain to me how your sentence isn't homophobic

I think the OP should figure out what it is he doesn’t like about the situation and then come back.
The thread starts…..
Anyone care to debate the ins and outs of same sex parenting?
But apparently suggesting that’s what it’s actually about is an insult to the OP (who wrote it)
so until someone decides what it is that we should be discussing, there seems very little point

How does, "Anyone care to debate the ins and outs of same sex parenting" turn into "I don't think gay couples should raise kids, because they are, you know, gay!" which is what you are insinuating my op means.

What "Anyone care to debate the ins and outs of same sex parenting" actually meant in the op was, can we have a debate about everything that same sex parenting entails. Its an interesting topic don't you think? Obviously you do, as you keep posting on it. The fact it has developed into a more specific debate on the ethical/moral issues (if there are any) of surrogacy is neither here nor there.

How does, “Anyone care to debate the ins and outs of same sex parenting” turn into “I don’t think gay couples should raise kids, because they are, you know, gay!”

But you did say

 I have no doubt that two men are quite capapble of raising a child, but I also have a feeling of “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”

So what part of it being two men raising the child is it that gives you that feeling if it isn't that they are the same sex?

I'm starting to think the OP is enjoying the attention.

Life is precious and a gift and all that, and to create life and then give it away to friends or neighbours or whoever just seems to make the whole creation of life miracle a little less special.

It's not "giving it away" anymore than building a bike for someone who wants a bike is "giving it away". A gift yes but not a giving away and certainly not to "whoever" as if any random person would do.
Also not sure what this statement mean if it does not mean you are not comfortable with two men having a child together.

I have no doubt that two men are quite capapble of raising a child, but I also have a feeling of “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”

IMHO their sexuality is irrelevant they are either good and fit people or they are not and knowing where they hide the sausage wont enable me to answer this question.

I’m not sure about it, like saxonrider says its the whole baby to order thing. I have no doubt that two men are quite capapble of raising a child, but I also have a feeling of “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”

So that's whole quote. And to hopefully explain myself a little better.... what i meant by that was that i have no problem with two mem raising a child, but just because we can create babies using artificial methods doesnt necessarily mean we should.

Just popping in to say congrats to the parents. 😊

Gender has no bearing on good parenting by the way.

The use of the word "artificial" marks you out as a nut case, in this context. Just so you know.

Gender has no bearing on good parenting by the way.

No quite right, it doesn't. But it is still important, wherever possible, to have both the paternal/masculine and maternal/feminine roles equally represented.

but just because we can create babies using artificial methods doesnt necessarily mean we should.

Which “artificial methods” are ok though ?

Is it ok for a lesbian to go out and get drunk so she can face having sex with some random bloke, so that her and her partner can be parents ?

Would that be better than using a willing friend as a sperm donor and going along to a clinic ?

But it is still important, wherever possible, to have both the paternal/masculine and maternal/feminine roles equally represented.

is it ?

The use of the word “artificial” marks you out as a nut case, in this context. Just so you know.

How so? It is artificial insemination right??

is it ?

I thought we'd largely agreed on the importance of having gender roles equally and fairly represented throughout society. If you don't agree with that then you may well not agree with my statement.

But besides that, the data very clearly shows that kids do better when raised by two parents rather than one. So far that data is confined to heterosexual couples but only because the possibility for other family units is a relatively new thing.

But besides that, the data very clearly shows that kids do better when raised by [b]two parents rather than one. So far that data is confined to heterosexual couples but only [/b]because the possibility for other family units is a relatively new thing.

so it’s just your opinion then ?

But besides that, the data very clearly shows that kids do better when raised by two parents rather than one.

So pointless data for this discussion where the child will have two parents...

Its worse than that as his own facts are not even about the issue he raised.He proved research shows two parents are best he argued you needed to have representation of the female and the male which the research does not show.

it is still important, wherever possible, to have both the paternal/masculine and maternal/feminine roles equally represented.

Definitely opinion and presumably a butch woman and a mincing queen should have this covered 😉

so it’s just your opinion then ?

Good lord no, the data on this pretty well established, at least thus far. Children living with both biological parents, on average do better than those only living with one. But the data also shows that parental conflict is also a major contributing factor so in many instances, the differences between those doing badly in a single parent household and those doing badly in a two parent household is pretty marginal. To put it another way, having both biological parents it's no guarantee of a childs health and well being.

So pointless data for this discussion where the child will have two parents…

This data is yes but I wasn't trying to use this data to prove the point about the importance of having the maternal and paternal roles represented. That being the case, because the majority of single parent households with children in them are being raised by their mother, it could be argued that the difference is the lack of strong male role models. It could also be that it's just a lot harder with one than two (and anyone who has kids will tell you that has to be true). You'd need to do a multi-variate analysis to disentangle the variables which I am sure has been done but I've not seen any studies on it.

My point about gender roles being equally represented was simply based on where society had go to. It's very apparent that all manner of things perform better when we have equality of representation. Men and women are different and bring different skills to the party; it's common sense that having both represented in child rearing is something to be desired.

I wasn’t trying to use this data to prove the point about the importance of having the maternal and paternal roles represented

TOP TIP - Avoid this by simply not bringing it up when challenged about the importance of maternal and paternal roles

Top tip - when complex issues are being debated, try to keep up. I know it's hard when we end up discussing multiple variables but it's not impossible to delineate between these threads.

This guys jumps into swimming pools in trunks that are two sizes too small

why does that qualify his future parenthood newsworthy or of anyone else’s interests?

none of my business but I wish them all well

when complex issues are being debated, try to keep up. I know it’s hard when we end up discussing multiple variables but it’s not impossible to delineate between these threads

I've little opinion on the subject beyond "good luck to them," but I have to say that I think trailwagger is being unfairly lambasted here.  The OP was (to my mind) clearly intended to start an interesting discussion rather than being borne from prejudice.  I've been on the receiving end of ... at least one of the usual suspects' inferences before and no matter how much you re-explain yourself it's like having a discussion with a Nori brick.

Perhaps more debatable is the issue some have with surrogacy.  So I'm going to throw in a hand grenade.  Say the surrogate mother is a rape victim.  She doesn't want to keep the child because of the horrible memories, but can't bring herself to abort either.  She has friends, a nice couple of boys full of love who would happily raise the child as their own.  Where are we now?

This thread is morphing into Mumsnet.

More important than that is I've run out of biscuits - again - FFS.

Where are we now?

Cougar, try finding out what surrogacy is about, before throwing an irrelevant "grenade".

Where are we now?

For me this isnt surrogacy its adoption.

Where are we now?

dictionary corner ?

Say the surrogate mother is a rape victim. She doesn’t want to keep the child because of the horrible memories, but can’t bring herself to abort either.

To me that is straight forward adoption. Surrogacy is planned and contracts etc agreed up front.

so it’s just your opinion then ?

Good lord no, the data on this pretty well established, at least thus far. Children living with both biological parents, on average do better than those only living with one. But the data also shows that parental conflict is also a major contributing factor so in many instances, the differences between those doing badly in a single parent household and those doing badly in a two parent household is pretty marginal. To put it another way, having both biological parents it’s no guarantee of a childs health and well being.

You seem to have misunderstood my question.

I was asking why (as you claimed) it was important to have maternal and paternal roles represented in a parenting couple....

But it is still important, wherever possible, to have both the paternal/masculine and maternal/feminine roles equally represented.

youve not demonstrated anything so far that shows this is anything other than simply your opinion.

Cougar, try finding out what surrogacy is about, before throwing an irrelevant “grenade”.

Fair point.  I didn't think that through.  Sorry.

You seem to have misunderstood my question.

I was asking why (as you claimed) it was important to have maternal and paternal roles represented in a parenting couple….

Yes I see there was some confusion and there are multiple threads that are intertwined here but I see that there was a misunderstanding somewhere.

So, to be clear, I'll deal with the issue of two versus one first.

The data shows us very clearly that kids do better when both mum and dad are fully involved in bringing up a child. It doesn't apply in all situations and the instance of parental conflict is the key variable that denudes the protection that both parents being around provides for a child's well being.

This data is based on family units where (mum and dad) are present and contrasted against (just mum) or, more rarely, (just dad) - the parenthesis represents the set being examined.

There have also been studies done that also compare both those sets to (mum + step dad).

The data shows that where mum and dad or mum and step dad are present, kids do far better, boys especially. This is significant since we know that we have a big problem with boys under performing at schools, white working class boys especially. We desperately need policy to address this problem but that is a separate issue.

What hasn't been extensively controlled for, are other combinations where you have two maternal or two paternal roles exclusively. I understand that the initial data suggests that all other factors being equal, these family units seem to do as well as those with mum and dad but there isn't enough data to draw a valid conclusion, at least not since I last looked at this issue which was several years ago.

So we can safely conclude that two are better than one. Which brings us on to the second issue of having maternal and paternal roles represented.

This is less about what the data tells us and more about how we as a society feel about it. The issue here is both 'my opinion' and also 'society's opinion' since we have as a society decided that a more equal representation of gender roles in key institutions of sociiety is important and that any policy or natrual phenomenon that ends up marginalising one gender in those roles is not good.

If we are going to draw this conclusion and take steps to ensure that, as far as possible, we do have equal representation, then it stands to reason that we should look at all aspects of society. So far we have made significant progress in the workplace, politics and to a lesser degree religion but we have made zero progress with family.

If you agree that equality of representation is important (as I am sure you do), then one of the things we can do is say that whatever structure the main family unit is going to take, as far as possible, we should enable and promote the involvement of both the maternal and paternal roles in parenting.

That doesn't have to mean that only 'mums and dads' should be the main family unit; other structures could (and most likely will) work just as well, for example two paternal/maternal roles in the main unit with opposite biological gender role as a third party.

There will be exceptions to this of course, such as adoption by a same sex couple where the process specifically has to exclude one of those role by nature of the circumstance.

So to summarise, my point about having both roles represented is based on the notion that equality of representation is important in society.

Of course I am more than happy for you to challenge that notion. There may well be cogent arguments to say that equality of representation isn't that important at least not empirically speaking and that it's just something we decide on because it's politically expedient. But I'm not sure you're ready to make that argument?

HINT

This is less about what the data tells us and more about how we as a society feel about it. The issue here is both ‘my opinion’ and also ‘society’s opinion’ since we have as a society decided that a more equal representation of gender roles in key institutions of sociiety is important and that any policy or natrual phenomenon that ends up marginalising one gender in those roles is not good.

This is where you are going badly wrong.  You have taken your opirion to be society's opinion and incorrectly associated gender equality to this discussion.

At the risk of getting attacked once more, I do have this to add.

I was discussing it with the wife last night (who has a degree in child development), and her view is that single sex parents are fine and children do just as well in this type of environment, but, they do need role models of the opposite sex. So in the case of two paternal parents, they need close relationships with Aunts or Grandmothers for example.

I agree with kerley. Taking a study and trying to extrapolate the findings to a broadly similar scenario is one thing.

Taking a supposed societal opinion on gender equality and applying it to this scenario is completely different and pure supposition. If you want to state it as your opinion then fine, but don’t pretend that it has any weight beyond that

I agree with kerley. Taking a study and trying to extrapolate the findings to a broadly similar scenario is one thing.

I categorically didn't do that.

You have taken your opirion to be society’s opinion and incorrectly associated gender equality to this discussion.

No that's not what I did. You cannot either correctly or incorrectly do anything of the sort since these issues are not absolute. There is no right or wrong. You might not agree with what I did and that's ok.

Taking a supposed societal opinion on gender equality and applying it to this scenario is completely different and pure supposition.

Yes it is. I made that very clear.

So then Kerley and Jonnyboi, are you both saying that you don't think equality of representation in gender roles is an important thing in an absolute sense?

By that I mean, do you agree that there are certain places and situations where it's OK for one gender to be less equally represented without that being a problem?

And if that is what you're saying, where else other than family might that imbalance be OK?

I think you are probably right to be honest. Since this issue is not an absolute I think probably we should dismiss the issue of equality of representation as an absolute objective.

they need close relationships with Aunts or Grandmothers for example.

I think the term you were looking for was probably more along the lines of  'they may benefit from close relationships with Aunts or Grandmothers' wasn't it.

Yes I see there was some confusion and there are multiple threads that are intertwined here but I see that there was a misunderstanding somewhere.

Nobody else seems confused apart from you to be honest. You just stated an opinion, then backed it up with information from an irrelevant study, which didn’t back up your opinion at all

this is what I was (always) talking about  ...

Gender has no bearing on good parenting by the way.

No quite right, it doesn’t. But it is still important, wherever possible, to have both the paternal/masculine and maternal/feminine roles equally represented.

And as far as I can see, that is simply [b]your opinion[/b]

it certainly isn’t a “general concencus” as you seem to be suggesting

and you’ve so far, only quoted from studies that disagree with you. 😳

So, to be clear, I’ll deal with the issue of two versus one first.

Why?

This is an issue that only you seem to want to discuss, it is not relevant to single sex couples being parents, and was not part of the discussion at all until you started quoting studies about it.

white working class boys especially.

Seriously how have you made such a basic error ? its almost as if you have tried to force your agenda onto the research yet again and misrepresent 🙄

Cougar: you’re rape example isn’t surrogacy it’s giving the child up for adoption. Surrogacy involves a level of forethought, planning and potentially genetic material from the intended parents. Also although there can be unanticipated complications along the way everyone involved goes into the process willingly and knowing what’s expected of them.

Fair point.  I didn’t think that through.  Sorry.

Think you missed this post @muppetwrangler

You’re right I did miss that post, viewing on my phone and have a tendency to skip over things. Apologies to Cougar

Geetee, can you clarify what you mean about equal representation of gender roles? Start with how many there are, if they can be counted.

Oh an do show us your website. I would respond to you original reply, but it seems a bit mixed up

This thread has gone all heavy,very little cut and paste quotes from obscure web sites to back up various ideas to propagate on the thread. No capitalisation, and little trolling .

Seems as if a bloke who writes crap for a daily newspaper has caused a stir and a lot of advertisers are withdrawing their advertising in the next few days or immediately, because of the stuff he has written about

Popbitch readers will have seen a more light-hearted (and possibly libelous) slant on this today.