No disadvantage to having two mums, study finds

Having two mums is no worse than having a mum and a dad and could be better than having a solo parent, a review of research on the subject has found.

The review, published in the February issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family, found that while there is a common perception that children need both a mother and a father to do well, there is no research that shows this.

Sociologists Judith Stacey of New York University and Timothy J. Biblarz from the University of Southern California found that much research that supposedly shows children need a parent of both genders is “apples and oranges” research.

These studies compared heterosexual couples to single parents but not to same-sex couples.

So the authors reviewed 81 studies conducted since 1990 that either compared lesbian couples to heterosexual couples or single mothers to single fathers.

They found that the children of lesbian and heterosexual couples are more alike than they are different and that social class and educational background are more important in parenting style than gender alone.

They couldn’t find enough research to do a similar review of gay male couples but the researchers predicted the results would be similar and said the quality of parenting is more important than the gender of the parents.

7 · Got a question about this story? Leave it in Comments & Questions below.

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about MyNBR Tags

Post Comment

7 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

Dead wrong. Children need mother and father. Motherless or fatherless children is not what society needs ever.

  • 0
  • 0

Any study undertaken by "sociologists" would find the same thing - they conduct "research" in a way that confirms their own preconceived ideas. When will we be rid of these parasites with their social engineering agenda?

  • 0
  • 0

Me, I'd want to read the study and check its method before trashing it. Just sayin'.

  • 0
  • 0

Agreed, Eric! I am sooooo looking forward to the research that supports the points made in the first two comments.

Oh, isn't there any research to support their claims?

Now is that because no researcher starts with those preconceptions, or is it that even researchers who start with those preconceptions cannot find the data to support them? I wonder!

  • 0
  • 0

The "social sciences" are run by people with a social engineering agenda and the same sort of commitment to objectivilty as the climate change lobby. Anyone who disagrees hasn't met academics specialsing in this field ..... or is an academic specialising in this field.

  • 0
  • 0

Look no further than the "Frankfurt School" for the rationale - which is not to say that these types are in any way rational. Their "Common Purpose" objectives are very clearly stated. In short these neo-Marxists are chip chip chipping away at what they perceive to be their major roadblock to such corkers as "UN Agenda 21". In short these "Gramscians" come from a "Critical Theory" tradition that fled from Frankfurt, during the 30's (to escape fellow Travelers - The National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party AKA NAZI's). They were offered Tenure of Faculty by Columbia University and then attempted to radicalise the US worker. Why? Well quite simply they were horrified that the German white working class male became NATIONAL Socialists, as opposed to the "International" variant espoused under Marxism-Leninism & Western variants such as The Fabian Society. They failed to radicalise the American worker because the 40's represented a joint effort to nail the Nazi menace & the 1950's saw a boom that allowed Capital and Labour to work together and provide - in the main - a fairly decent wage for a decent day's work.
We then see Professor Marcuse of Frankfurt School / Columbia fame updating "Critical Theory" (deconstruction of Western value systems) in his new theory " The Theory of Polymorphic Perversity" - which was designed to deconstruct social mores re; the family in order to destroy the major roadblock to radicalisation of the West i.e. the now "untrustworthy from a Revolutionary perspective White Western Male).
Thus a series of neo-Marxist lies were built into everything to do with education - EVERYTHING. The lies that were promulgated were that white males wished to destroy women, ethnic minorities & homosexuals. Remember, and as discussed at length in their freely available Theorems, that with the new belief in the untrustworthy nature of the white male re: revolutionary reliability, that they now sought a new constituency - which just so happened to be radicalised Feminists (as opposed to women that rightly demanded a fair go), non-whites etc etc. What makes this so so odious is that Marx referred to women as "intellectually second rate" and the ethnic minorities as "racial trash" - what disgusting immoral hypocrisy.
What we now see is the result of long planned collectivist infiltration of those institutions that traditionally transmitted the values and learnings of previous male and female sages - to be replaced with factories churning out theories designed to fracture our children from their history in order to prepare them to be "World Citizens" in a neo-feudal society based on their Statist agenda. It is simply about control.
Look up "UN Agenda 21" and read all about it - in THEIR OWN words.
The western lifestyle is predicated on energy, and lots of it. .
Anti-west groups such as these see energy production as a legitimate target, and they have invented an anti-energy zeitgeist centered on a dishonest exaggeration of the atmosphere warming effect of carbon dioxide, which is a by-product of fossil fuel combustion (and which, incidentally, also makes plants thrive).
The tactic suits the disparate agendas of a large number of different down-with-everything groups, and instead of being at each others' throats they are pulling together in an unprecedented fashion, which after decades of propaganda has caused a societal instability that forces even normally rational politicians to go along with it. Opposition was largely neutralised. Nuclear fission was demonised to avoid weakening the global warming stick.
However, the tactic is unraveling fast, since writing alarmist computer programs has failed to cause greenhouse Armageddon, and better scientific hypotheses which actually fit the facts on the ground and in the air and space have appeared. We can expect the left to bolt to some other anti-west political doctrine fairly soon - over-consumption, perhaps, or possibly bovine flatulence. Maybe we will see pollution and acid rain resurrected.
Unfortunately, however, this fallacious preoccupation with CO2-based 'green' issues has led Labour to land us in an energy hole. The kindest interpretation of their gross dereliction of duty is that they were so blinded by greater opportunities to kick people around, and of carbon taxes flooding in, that they ignored reality - a trait we have seen before in Labour.
Windmills couldn't ever cut it - there never was enough energy to be had from the wind - but Labour, as usual, refused to accept the reality. Not only did many of them prefer to study subjects easier than maths and physics, but also to be a socialist believer you have to be intrinsically unrealistic in the first place.
Huge sums of money are being squandered on a renewable energy illusion, and the extent of our politicians' culpability for their negligence remains to be seen.
And, of course, Labour also could not resist the extra excuse to pick pockets for doctrinaire reasons. The big give-away is their Big-Sisters in the UN going after private motor vehicles, whose global carbon dioxide emissions are negligible even in the exaggerated IPCC global warming context that Labour and their "Internationalist" cohorts use to justify their predatory extortion.
The official Labour/UN driven 'climate change' agenda is just another grubby money grab that has nothing to do with the climate.
UN Agenda 21 - check it out. If you truly love freedom... oh yes and people of every gender/race or persuasion as long as they also love TRUE freedom - then help our Common Law society route out this infestation of Trojan Mice at every level.

  • 0
  • 0

It's not normal, it's not natural, it's not what has led the human race to be the most succesful on the planet and tha facts are that woman are as guilty of abuse both verbal and physical as men.
i would rather eat glass than have 2 mothers, children need both role models and need to understand the world from the differing points of view that the different sexes have.
Feminists have a lot to answer for as many women who want to be at home to bring up their children can no longer afford to due to the labour over-supply caused by the feminist movement telling women that being a mother was not enough - (as far as i am concerned probably the most important job in the world) and now they want us all to believe that a child bought up without a positive male role model is as well off as one whom is......BOLLOCKS - without researching this, it is clearly not correct - use your minds to think about it, even women should be able to manage that.

  • 0
  • 0

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot


Sym Price Change
USD 0.7287 -0.0002 -0.03%
AUD 0.9156 0.0002 0.02%
EUR 0.6125 0.0012 0.20%
GBP 0.5386 -0.0011 -0.20%
HKD 5.6923 0.0004 0.01%
JPY 81.7020 -0.2320 -0.28%


Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1293.3 6.130 2017-09-22T00:
Oil Brent 56.4 0.420 2017-09-22T00:
Oil Nymex 50.7 0.110 2017-09-22T00:
Silver Index 16.9 -0.034 2017-09-22T00:


Symbol Open High Last %
NZX 50 7819.4 7870.9 7814.8 0.70%
NASDAQ 6401.4 6429.5 6422.7 0.07%
DAX 12573.4 12633.1 12592.4 0.27%
DJI 22334.1 22364.3 22359.2 -0.04%
FTSE 7310.6 7310.6 7310.6 -0.16%
HKSE 27851.5 27851.5 27880.5 -1.36%
NI225 20439.4 20454.3 20296.5 0.50%
ASX 5682.1 5710.4 5682.1 0.03%