Do we really need dads?

Phil says:

07:12am | 18/03/11

Good to see your still alive.

KH says:

07:12am | 18/03/11

And who exactly will give birth to them, you fool?  No matter how hard men try, you will simply never be able to procreate without women.

Mahhrat says:

07:15am | 18/03/11

Erick’s absolutely right on this one, and again he’s adroitly pointed out the inherent sexism that goes on in modern media.

Susie, I’d also like to point out that:

“But as she sees it – and I agree – “having children is the least selfish thing you can do”.

is entirely INCORRECT.  Having children is the single most selfish thing you can do in life - creating a whole life just because you want to, in a world already grossly over-populated.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t, nor is it right to control how many children you decide to have (the discussion over the responsibility for those kids can be had another day).  But to claim it’s “unselfish” is ridiculous - that love could be given easily to any number of disadvantaged kids in our “modern and compassionate” society.

Finally, I don’t believe a child needs a “mum” and a “dad”.  A child needs a nurturer/protector role model and a disciplinarian/teacher role model.  It matters not a whit the people who carry them out, only that they’re done with love, regard and support for the child’s best interests.

marley says:

07:35am | 18/03/11

No reason why guys shouldn’t have kids. And in fact I know several gay male couples who have had children via the artificial insemination route (lesbian friends being the surrogates in two cases).  The same principle applies to them as to kids with two mothers - they need a female role mother as much as kids need a male one, but it doesn’t absolutely have to be a biological parent. 

Not sure about the male-to-male pairing of DNA - I’ve never heard of it or the female equivalent - not saying you’re wrong, Erick, just saying I’m unfamiliar with that.  The one lesbian couple I know who have two boys, did it via artificial insemination of real unmodified male DNA.

As for choosing the kid’s genetic heritage, now that I don’t like.  Eugenics - ugh.

Tim the Toolman says:

08:11am | 18/03/11

“And who exactly will give birth to them, you fool?”

He addressed that…it’s generally a bad idea to call someone a fool when it takes two seconds of reading to see that you’re wrong.  Here’s what he siad:

“Surrogate mothers are available for a very affordable price in India”
and
“rtificial wombs which are already under development.”

How far along they are is irrelevant given your blanket statement of “never be able to procreate without women. “

There’s a fool here, but for once it’s not Erick.

acotrel says:

08:21am | 18/03/11

‘Let’s face it, there are too many nuclear families out there that are totally dysfunctional, so it’s pretty hard for us biological hetero breeders to take the high moral ground.’

With all our modern advantages we still haven’t found a way to train people to relate well to each other?  It could be as simple as introducing ballroom dancing, and etiquette to kids in schools?

Peter says:

08:32am | 18/03/11

Erick’s makes a very good point which KH seems incapable of grasping. If technology has advanced to the point where it inadvertently discriminates against one gender, why should the other gender be spared exclusion by further advances?
In a futuristic “artificial womb” scenario, reproduction would become the preserve of either corporation or the state. Parents, be they couples or individuals would deposit their genetic material along with their down payment and await the email or sms advising them their bundle of joy had completed its accelerated gestation. 
It’s not hard to imagine the emergence of various new forms of discrimination against men and women in such a scenario, which in my view is a nightmare far beyond anything Orwell could conceive.

Cloud Strife says:

08:34am | 18/03/11

Did you read the article, Erick?

rufus says:

08:53am | 18/03/11

No surprise to see that this headline provoked Erick to be the first respondent.

Erick, I believe there are laws preventing people in NSW having children via surrogacy.

I shudder to think of a world where humans were cloned via male pairings. They may well turn out to be men unable to form satisfying relationships with women, descending into misogyny and daily online rants about male victimhood and a pro-female media and government plot.

Mirror says:

09:09am | 18/03/11

KH,

Nice abuse, very becoming.

Try reading what he wrote before you froth at the mouth.

Who provides the sperm - no matter how hard you try etc. etc.

Eleanor says:

10:22am | 18/03/11

For once, I’m in total agreeance with you Erick. Whether it’s a single dad or mum, two dads or two mums, what matters the most is that the child is loved and cared for.

Ando says:

10:35am | 18/03/11

Maybe women should eat the dad after sex?

NicoleG says:

10:42am | 18/03/11

Well said Erick, agreed. And you know what gives me a grin? The fact that you get up rufus’s nose so much. hehehe

thelburden says:

11:03am | 18/03/11

Women are the root cause of all that is wrong with the world. Any hostility, jealousy, depression or anger. A better trick would be to find the DNA that affects women in this way and to eliminate it. Thereby still leaving them to be available for other useful tasks. Ironing, sex etc.

Reg says:

01:52pm | 18/03/11

“It is possible to passionately support the right of dads in our society, and still support the right of single women and male same-sex couples to have kids.”

I suppose that sentence sums up what is wrong with the article.

If a single woman who cannot find a man can be allowed to have a child through artificial means “just because she wants to”, why shouldn’t a single man be afforded the same opportunity (I appreciate 99% of single men would not want this anyway)?

Unfortunately, a lot of parents these days see children as one of their accessories, without thinking that this is another human being with rights.

The worst of all is the women who are single either by choice or by lack of interest from men, who use IVF to have child because “I felt that there was something missing in my life” or “I desperately wanted to be a mother” or similar drivel.

Talk about selfish with a capital S. It is these types we should be trying to weed out of the gene pool, not allowing to procreate.

Peter says:

01:55pm | 18/03/11

“As I’ve said… I know… I am… my husband… I hit… I know… I am not… What I support… I support… I support… me… I asked… and I agree… “

Is this an article about the issue, or the attempt of a middle class progressive to prove how enlightened she is to the rest of her mothers’ group?

Wombat says:

01:57pm | 18/03/11

Haven’t we more than enough people in the World without introducing more children with only one parent to guide them through life.

Let these Single people live with their lovers alone,  otherwise, get Married too an opposite sex person and do normal things, as the majority of us do..

acotrel says:

03:30pm | 18/03/11

In Japan people are conditioned to relate well to each other.  They are polite and manners are at a premium.  It came about through eons of life under people with nig sharp swords who were prepared to behead their subjects.  That the way to estabilsh relationships in which people respect each other and have well adjusted kids.

Sarah says:

01:44am | 19/03/11

If and when men can get pregnant and have a baby, then they are free to have their own…but until then, they need a woman if they want children.  And they had better be nice to their woman or they will risk not having either her or any children either.

Piglet says:

09:22am | 19/03/11

What a dingbat KH! Look what you’ve just typed. Men can’t procreate without women. Are you suggesting Women can procreate without men? I think it’s time someone gave you the talk about the birds and the bees my friend. You’ve obviously missed something along the way.
The use of IVF to assist those that can’t reproduce is a blessing. To abuse the use of this I think is wrong. The fact of life dicatet it takes a male and a female of any speices to reproduce. To abuse this is just wrong.

Jimbo Jones says:

11:08am | 19/03/11

Easy fixed, men just stop donating semen to the IVF.  The world has gone to the dogs, and it seems that men are the main course.  I am personally over the way men are treated in todays society.  No wonder the divorce rate is so high in this country, we are treated like walking ATM’s and Sperm banks.

Darwin says:

11:25am | 19/03/11

Nature always intended a man and women to have a child together. Not just one or the other. There is a purpose behind it. It is irresponsible to break that fundamental instruction from nature.

Put children first - not your selfish need to have a child because you feel that you have a right to, or because you cannot control the reproduction desire. Having a child is not a right - it is a privilege.

austin 3:16 says:

08:04am | 20/03/11

Hey Erik,

The first altruistic surrogacy baby in Qld was for a gay couple in November last year.

Melinda says:

07:36am | 18/03/11

I grew up with a father in my life and he caused me a lot of pain and suffering. I think the character of the people you are raised by are more important than their sex or even their relation to you. As for IVF and particularly surrogacy, I couldn’t agree more. There are enough unwanted children on this planet to meet everyone’s longing for a family. I think adoption laws should be improved to make that option more accessible rather than go down the path of painful, expensive, invasive, experimental and often unethical practices. I mean no offence to people who have gone down that road. I do understand the desire to have a biological family. But if that’s not possible, there are countless children who would be happy to have the love and care of any family,  biological or not.

Scotchy (a damned good dad) says:

08:13am | 18/03/11

I agree with KH. Kids need their dads, I have seen first hand the effects of dads that leave their children forever (Abandoning them) , they need their mums too.
Ive fought to keep access to my 5yo because his mum figured a dad was not required.He will grow up with a male role model in me his father.
So all those out there that think they can have gay marriage or just want to be single mums, well you are all misinformed idealists.

Tim says:

08:22am | 18/03/11

I can’t believe it, but I actually agree with KH for once.

Michael says:

08:29am | 18/03/11

Now please don’t get me wrong, i don’t attempt to take away any of the beliefs you have about your life but, if you suffer at all it is from nothing more than the belief that you suffer.
From a belief all experience is derived, only through a belief does something become evident. Try it out yourself, look at two people or a person on the phone and convince yourself that they are fighting, make sure you can’t hear them, and then watch as all their expressions seem to prove your belief “they are fighting” then try and use the same people/person and decide they are fearful or trying to get a job interview, sure enough it will appear to you that they are actually articulating the very belief you have assigned them.
Thus if you believe in something with sufficient effort it will appear as a reality to you for as long as you believe it to be true.

Blackadder says:

08:43am | 18/03/11

My 11 y/o daughter proudly tells people “mums are for food” and “dads are for fun and playing”. Walking my daughter out of school, where that night was an internet safety session for parents, my wife was concerned at not being able to attend. My daughter announced to my wife “don’t worry mum, dad is my internet safety teacher”.

It’s little things that make both mum’s and dad’s important in a child’s life.

My daughter has a lot of friends from single parent families…many of the kids are insecure. Of late I’ve been getting phone calls from these kids to help with computer related issues because their mum’s are technically clueless…I feel sad for the kids for having no-where to turn.

There is a vast difference in nature and character between males and females, and I have empathy towards kids in same-sex relationships and from broken homes, in that they are not receiving a balanced upbringing.

In all cases, it’s not the kids fault they are in the situation they are - yet they are the ones that carry the emotional scars through life.

I think in many cases parents are selfish and only think of themselves and benefits to them from having kids. That perspective is wrong. The kids should be the prime focus.

Consider what’s best for the child…not what’s convenient for a living arrangement.

Ryan says:

09:24am | 18/03/11

So Melinda, assuming you are claiming that your father abused you, and the spurious comparison, you are equating not having a father to child abuse then? How very interesting.

Chris says:

09:29am | 18/03/11

I agree, KH. Then also to have it funded by Medicare? Appalling when we have people with real diseases that this money could be funding.

Michael2 says:

10:48am | 18/03/11

“We certainly don’t need the additional population.” No, but can’t we want it? Why should people have to suffer natural infertility? Why should it be “tough luck”? Why shouldn’t they “get to have any” when technology is available. And KH, please don’t accuse me of trying to supress your opinion (because I am not), but on what basis do you find yourself wishing to be the arbiter of who shouldn’t be having children?

Markus says:

12:48pm | 18/03/11

@Michael2: They can choose to have them, using the IVF technology available. But it shouldn’t be subsidised by Medicare, for fertile single ladies especially.

marley says:

03:05pm | 18/03/11

An awful lot of you are confusing the rather expensive and complex IVF procedure with artificial insemination, which is a cheaper and simpler thing entirely.  If a woman has no medical issues that make pregnancy difficult, AI will do the job just fine.  And it costs far less than IVF.

acotrel says:

03:12pm | 18/03/11

@scotchy You’ve got it right.  I am the stepfather to a woman who was deserted as a child,  by her natural father.  The damage is apalling.

Kevin Lewis says:

05:42pm | 18/03/11

KH It is never too late.  Try talking to someone in the Mankind Project.  It has made a huge difference to me and to tens of thousands of men all over the world who think they are a lost cause.  Safe Masculinity is essential for children and families.  The MKP promotes that and provides a place for men to deal with the damage that has been done to them and by them.

KH is a toss says:

05:48pm | 18/03/11

KH… do us all a favour and go play chicken with some trucks on the highway.

Dave C says:

05:57pm | 18/03/11

I cant believe the selfish nasty condescending attitude. I injured my self via no fault of my own years ago and as a result have a very low sperm count. After 7 years of marriage and 3 years of trying for a baby we did IVF (at the cheapest place we could find at Westmead because money was tight) and we now have a healthy normal beautiful baby girl who will grow up with a normal Mum and Dad…

Therefore what give you the F*#^ing right to say my wife and I who are middle class working taxpayers with no criminal records not to have IVF. I work as a high school teacher and see 20yo unemployed drug addicts impregnating 16yo girls, the children will end up welfare scum savaging off the taxpayer while my little girl will as an adult make a contribution to society, get a job and pay taxes just like my wife and I have.

Then you have the hide the say we dont deserve the $1500 IVF rebate from medicare we got when we conceived 18 months ago when welfare scum and naturally procreating creating a greater taxpayer burden.

I really hope you thought of people like my wife and daughter when you exercised your right to say people dont deserve IVF, I really hope you thought of what that sort of opinion does to my family.

Life wasn't on a golden platter says:

08:14pm | 18/03/11

@KH.
I grew up without my real father and life sucked as well as a kid. My mother went form one man to another and didn’t care if he (the new boyfriend) belted the shit out of us and he did on many occasions, i hate my mothers guts and haven’t spoken to her in many years. I don’t miss her. My point is your not the only one who has had a shit upbringing and the only thing that stops you from moving forwarded is YOUR ATTITUDE.  NO matter what I went through I always tell myself some other kid might have it worse then me, it doesn’t matter if they don’t but it helps to move on. What doesn’t break you makes you, don’t be a victim be a survivor your an adult now and your in charge of your life not your parents. So the mistakes you make today are your own fault.

As for who is the better parent mums or dads? well none is the answer.
I know for a fact that both sexes are just as bad for abandoning there kids and responsibility’s, it comes down to the individual you either want to be a parent or you don’t. I know some single fathers who do a dame good job at bringing up his boys and girls and there are single mums who can be just as proud as single dads.

If two men or two women can love a child just as much as a man and a women can then i can’t see why they can’t be parents, of course they will need a male or female to fill the gaps but they already know that.
No parent is perfect we all make mistakes, sometimes kids are better off with gay parents they don’t fight as much as man and women do. I’m not gay but i can tell you heterosexuals can be our own enemies because we always think we are right when sometimes we could be wrong. Gays could argue why should they pay so much in taxes when there money will only end up supporting single parents and it’s the one thing they want too is a family. If i have another kid tomorrow it’s not going to effect the gay population so how will it effect others if gays have kids? It doesn’t

female realist says:

04:02pm | 19/03/11

My sentiments exactly KH, don’t think you are alone in your way of thinking because you are not.

Brett says:

09:17am | 21/03/11

@Life wasn’t on a golden platter -  Here here! Its the victim mentality that truly screws people over. I understand peopl ehave it rough and as a kid that can leave a mark, but how you choose to deal with it is the key. I’ve known people who watched their Dad’s commit suicide at the age of 5 who turn out great, or lived in dire poverty in the 60’s and watched their mum run over by a drunk driver at a pedestrian crossing at 12, who turned into the best man I ever knew. Its the attitude that matters.

Or you can be like others I know who blame their mother for everything that is wrong with them, and blame the world for anything else and never move on. Or just blame everyone for everything, never once realising that they are the common denominator in all their failed relationships.

Its the attitude that does it.

adie says:

08:14am | 18/03/11

People decide they dont want to be parents anymore whether they’re male or female, or in a hetro or homosexual relationship.  I live with a girl who hasnt seen her dad in over a decade because he decided he didnt want anything to do with his kids, and my great grandmother ran out on her husband and three kids to start a relationship with my great grandfather.  My nan didnt even know she had older siblings until she was 60.

I'm going straight to hell for this one says:

08:17am | 18/03/11

This technology was developed to enable infertile couples to be able to have children. People who are capable of conceiving in the natural way should not have access to IVF technologies. A lifestyle choice that rules out being able to get pregnant in the natural way does not equate to infertile so should not enable access to IVF technologies.

Cathii says:

08:21am | 18/03/11

I still don’t understand the myth that you need a “father” or even a “mother”... what a child needs is love and protection… Single women, single men, heterosexual couples, homosexual couples are ALL capable of providing that… Its time that closeted homophobes like yourself started to realise that it is about the children, not about your fake morality…

The Original Oz says:

08:54am | 18/03/11

Cathii - it has nothing to do with “closeted homophobes” as you put it. It has everything to do with excessive human population and ongoing sustainability of life on this planet. If a person makes a life choice that excludes their being able to conceive naturally then so be it - no IVF technology whether tax payer funded or privately funded. Having children is a life long commitment it is not a fad and children are not accessories. If your lifestyle choice means you won’t get pregnant then so be it.

marley says:

09:05am | 18/03/11

@Catthi - I don’t think that believing a child needs strong role models of both sexes is closet homophobia.  I couldn’t care less whether you’re gay or straight, single or in a relationship - but in the interests of the child, I think having both adult male and female guidance is really important.  Children with good fathers, or father figures, in their lives, grow up having a better appreciation of what decent male behaviour is, of what male points of view are on issues, of what males can “bring to the table” in terms of interests, viewpoints and values.  Children with good mothers, or maternal figures, similarly develop insights which might be more varied than those they would get in an exclusively male environment.  And since the world is still composed of two genders, any insight into the differences between the two is valuable to a child’s socialisation. 

That’s not at all the same thing as saying that children cannot thrive in a family with same sex parents. It’s to say that it’s a good idea for those parents to have friends of the opposite sex involved in their kids lives.  And for all the single parents, male and female out there, the same applies.

Gavin says:

11:00am | 18/03/11

@Phil, while I do not wish to agree with fatherless families by choice from conception being eligable for welfare like the dole, kids born to drop-kicks are still kids and can’t be left to a life begging on the street.
@ Straight To Hell; if the technology is available, why should a lifestyle choice prohibit use of said technology? You say they shouldn’t, but don’t give a reason why. Mein Fuhrer.
@ The Original Oz, I LOOOVE how you prattle on about “excessive human population”, yet here you are…existing. And why the hell shouldn’t people be able to use technology if their lifestyle choice doesn’t allow natural sexual conception, particularly if they are willing to fund it themselves.

Has somebody left the stable open today, because there are a few high horses running wild on this article.

PZM says:

11:39am | 18/03/11

The Original Oz - you got it in one buddy!

And to the rest of you, watch “Home” the online movie…

And then when your head is starting to become free from your own anus, also watch “Zeitgeist Moving Forward”

Time to wake up humans!!!

Cathii says:

12:52pm | 18/03/11

@The Original Oz ... Actually even with our current levels of technology and food production, the Earth can very easily sustain its current population and even increase by a factor of another half…

@marley ... My children had some wonderful role models of both sexes, it doesn’t matter if they were the sperm or egg donor (cause lets face it that’s all biological parents are, donors of bodily fluids and incubation units…) They don’t _need_ a father… nor do they _need_ a mother, what they need is love and protection from those around them… Wake up, get out of the homophobic 50’s…

Jane says:

01:29pm | 18/03/11

Oz, what happens if your lifestyle choice has been not to sleep with every guy who crosses your path?

My belief is an old fashioned one of “if you dont like me enough to date me, you obviously wont be around to be a father to my child” so I refuse to have one night stands or sleep with someone on the first date. end result Im now a 38yo spinster whose chances of finding a guy who wants a relationship is almost non-existant.

If I had been into getting drunk and picking up strangers I would be a parent by now.

borg says:

02:13pm | 18/03/11

@ Cathii, I presume anyone who disagree with you is always labelled as homophobic, how quaint.
A few years ago now, I was a scout leader.  One of the boys in the scout troop, attended every activity we had going and mimiced rather tenaciously myself as a male leader.  He was rather intense about every thing that was going on.
When I met his mother the situation became clearer, as his mother was in a lesbian relationship and for whatever reason, had a intense mistrust of men. 
Unfortunately this kid had really low self esteem and was ‘embarassed’ to be male and was desperate for a male role model.
Now 2 points spring to mind
1) How does this kid get a healthy view of how to be a man?
2) Is it right for this kids primary male role model to be a volunteer worker he see’s on an irregular basis?  And I wasn’t even aware that I was his primary role model for almost a year

Happily Married says:

02:45pm | 18/03/11

Good on you Phil for sticking at your marriage and being committed to loving your wife. A midwife once told us that the best thing a father can do for his children is “love his wife”. Commitment between a man and a woman is what is best for children (FACT). A union that is defined by the preferred sexual union of two (or more) which is more often casual in nature rather than committed should be an immediate exclusion for parenting. Children aren’t accessories or playthings for gay couples. There is no such thing as a gay gene (FACT). There is not a shred of scientific evidence. There are no shortage of theories. The one thing that separates us from the animal kingdom is our ability to choose. An animal does not wake up one morning and decide that they want to change their identity, sexual preference, place of abode, profession, life partner, diet, social status, political allegiance or anything else. They are simply incapable of doing so. We humans on the other hand are immensely powerful in what we decide and pursue for our lives. I could be gay if I wanted to!!! I choose not to. Anyone who says they are born this way or that way are just holding onto an excuse so they can justify their chosen lifestyle and force everyone else to accept them. Children deserve a loving mother and father (preferably biological). IVF for married couples that are committed to loving each-other and their baby. Everyone else should have a good look at their life choices.

Bilby says:

03:24pm | 18/03/11

Happily Married - Herds of wilder beast sweeping majestically across the plains. I believe that would be a bunch of animals changing abodes.

Male animals of just about every persuasion duking it out. I believe that would be animals attempting to change their social status.

Your other points relate only to humans, so I’ll leave them alone.

One final question. If being gay is not genetic, why would people go through all the heart break, all the personal struggles, risk being disowned by family and friends, for something that is merely a choice?

Another Dave says:

10:06pm | 18/03/11

Happily Married
I typed out a long rebuttal to your little rant, but then I decided, why bother? I could point out all the fallacies, and there are a lot, but it wouldn’t matter.  Because you’re either an idiot or a troll. Personally, I hope you’re a troll, it worries me that that level of stupidity could exist.

marley says:

01:28pm | 19/03/11

@Cathiii - read what I said again. Slowly.  The situation that I am advocating is the one you describe yourself as having.  So how does that make me homophobic?

Bec says:

08:03pm | 20/03/11

Happily Married - you may want to look at research on Drosophila Melanogaster. There are indications that there are in fact genes that dictate sexual preference in Drosophila. Just because a homologous gene has not been determined in humans doesn’t mean that it or a combination of genes that influences sexual preference does not exist.

over it says:

08:08am | 21/03/11

@Happily Married - I shudder to think about the values that you are instilling in your children. Homophobic, close minded, prejudicial values are what they are being brought up with. Your rant is not only ridiculous, but it is verging on insane. Some of your sweeping statements are nothing less than shameful and certainly not built on any life experience. No doubt your parents brought you up to have these lovely values on which you base your knowledge. And now you do the same to your children. “Children aren’t accessories or playthings for gay couples” Are you serious? Let me tell you, I am gay and in a loving relationship. We have tried to have a baby via artificial insemination and it is frightfully expensive and we didn’t do it in order to obtain a new play thing or accessory. And I assure we we didn’t get any help from medicare or anywhere else. Unfortunately, it didn’t work and we can’t financially afford to try again. My partner and I both work hard, pay taxes and live amongst people like you who continue to look down on us for what you so nonchalantly write off as a “life choice”. I was married to a man I met at school when I was 16. We chose to have a child 6 years ago and had we still been together, we would have had our 10 yr wedding anniversary a few months ago. About 3 years ago I knew that I wasn’t living the life I wanted to live and finally left him. I should have done it a long time ago, but the possibility of losing friends and family was very scary. We had been together for nearly 15 years and he was all I knew. My daughter lives with my partner and I 12 days out of a fortnight. She is a lovely little person, very open minded and I think that she understands the world better than you do. We have been accepted by our community with open arms and my daughter has many friends who also accept that my daughter lives with 2 mums. She sees her Dad every second weekend, but he does not agree with us being so open minded and he would prefer to be kept in the dark about “our lifestyle”. Needless to say, we tell her what she needs to know to protect herself from people such as yourself who will label her “an accessory or plaything”. To finish, I just have to say how funny I find your statement that says, ” I could be gay if I wanted to!!! I choose not to.” Are you deluded? You could not be gay because YOU ARE NOT gay. I didn’t wake up one morning and decide to be gay, because, hey, that would be so much fun to crush my husband, his family and my family with this fun revelation. I tried to be straight and I couldn’t continue to do it, I couldn’t be straight anymore than you could be gay. Don’t fear something just because you don’t understand it - open your mind and your heart and you might actually learn something in this world that goes well beyond your current level of understanding.

Cloud Strife says:

08:32am | 18/03/11

And what is your basis for this?

Paul Horn says:

10:18am | 18/03/11

On the basis that it is unfair to bring children into the world unnaturally and disadvantaged simple as that. No child has ever ever suffered as a result of being bought up in a loving stable heterosexual marriage. Not one.

However no matter how you dress up the benefits of single motherhood or homosexual relationships the child will still suffer! How the hell can they not? Like it or lump it they were conceived using male sperm and a female egg but they will not have the benefit let alone the right of having a relationship with both parents in a stable relationship. They will be left having to deal with the fact that the people who conceived are not in a relationship and never intended to be. How perverse! 

I know there are lots of heterosexuals who are irresponsible with their parenting and relationship choices but that is due to their own shortcomings. To legislate an arrangement that puts the childs needs and rights second to the selfish indulgent wants of an adult is an utter disgrace.

We cannot legislate personal responsibility and personal choice but we must prevent putting into legislation a second rate parenting arrangement for the sake of the children!

Legislation introduced by the Labor party in the 70’s that removed the requirement to show fault for a couple wishing to divorce has been an unmitigated disaster. We are now reaping it’s destructive rewards. Further legislation recognising de facto and homosexual couples has only eroded marital state further!

mike j says:

10:49am | 18/03/11

Well, a good place to start would be the wealth of overwhelming evidence linking single parent families with childhood dysfunction.

What’s your basis, Cloud Strife, for constantly asking ignorant questions without bothering to do the slightest bit of research?

My problem is with the word ‘deserve’. Where is the moral precedent, or the natural truth, that infertile couples ‘deserve’ to be able to create life? That homosexuals have a ‘right’ to have children? What absurd propositions. Doesn’t the child deserve the expectation of the love of a mother and father? Doesn’t the child have the right to an equal chance in life?

This entitlement and selfishness when politicising the lives and welfare of children is absolutely pathetic.

Michael says:

11:09am | 18/03/11

Paul Horn, your self-righteous indignation is far more poisonous than a single family. How about catching up with the times and observing the social shifts. Why don’t you join the Amish?

And Adam Diver, just who the hell are you to be trying to dictate the makeup of the gene pool. How would you like it if some State Authority came around to your house to “defertilise you” purely on the basis that it had been decided your genes were unworthy of the societal gene pool. It may happen if your idea catches on.

Gavin says:

12:08pm | 18/03/11

@MikeJ, so it’s ok for useless tootless beatnicks (read: One Nation voters) to heterosexually breed as is their right, but no-one outside this. What would you think about a National Birth Registry so that only approved “Breeders” may procreate and all other progeny be exterminated? Sound fair? Remembering that there is a chance you may not be allowed to breed.

mike j says:

12:21pm | 18/03/11

A National Birth Registry is obviously overkill, Gavin. Your attempt at a straw man, perhaps? I would, however, endorse the compulsory court-ordered sterilisation of demonstrably unfit parents (male and female), because the onus of proof would be on the state to prove that the individual is unfit, rather than the other way around. I also disagree with your value judgement that beatnicks, One Nation voters, and people without toots are, by definition, bad parents.

Tim says:

12:25pm | 18/03/11

Gavin,
so because some children have to live in non-ideal conditions, then it’s OK to purposely bring more children into the world to live in these conditions?
Great logic.
As for your National Birth Registry idea, I wouldn’t be totally against it but I think it would be far easier to remove the current financial inducements to have large numbers of children and maybe support financial reward to certain people who undertake voluntary sterilisation.

Jane says:

01:41pm | 18/03/11

Tim it would be easier still if we brought back teh social norm of “of you get her pregnant, you are getting married whether you want to or not” but I dont see any guys rushing to have that belief reenfonced.

Ando says:

02:09pm | 18/03/11

Jane,
Nor women .

Kate says:

03:31pm | 18/03/11

@Paul, I think it’s far better to allow no-fault divorce than to force two people to stay together who are clearly wrong for one another.
Being exposed to constant fights and possible family violence does far greater harm to kids than growing up with divorced parents.

KH says:

07:46am | 18/03/11

I understand.  My father has 3 other kids - I’ve never met any of them, but I looked on the internet - they all look so happy and well adjusted - normal nice family.  They got the nice home, and the nice life.  Sometimes I am very bitter about not having had that.  I just had crappy rental properties and changed schools every other year and wore op shop clothes.  But its just too late now.  I am a lot older than you, so its even worse…......

Bilby says:

08:23am | 18/03/11

My dad has a total of 4 kids to three mums. The youngest three of us (my half sisters and I) spent a lot of time with dad. #1 got shafted for reasons that I’ll never understand. After meeting him for the first time when he was in his 60s, I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. To those of us that got it, knowing that you’ve got a dad that loves you seems insignificant, but when that’s denied its a defining part of your life.

I know that mums end up single for all sorts of reasons and that some kids may have been better off without their dad around, but deliberately setting out to create a situation whereby a child will never meet their dad, never know his love, well that I don’t agree with at all.

Vince says:

11:35am | 18/03/11

“I know that mums end up single for all sorts of reasons and that some kids may have been better off without their dad around, but deliberately setting out to create a situation whereby a child will never meet their dad, never know his love, well that I don’t agree with at all. “

Extremely well put.  Agree 100%.

Paul Horn says:

02:41pm | 18/03/11

Well said folks from people who have suffered from the dominant media and feminist driven social agenda that subjugates our existence.

I can well remember arguing with one socialist nong that parents did’nt matter. It did not matter who your father was! It could be anyone! The state should care for all children. Just look at the utter failure that occured under Lenin in the 1920’s when his sick philosophy discouraged marriage and monogamous relationships. The resultant cost to the State with so many illegitimate children running around was so great that Stalin had no choice but to to reinstitute the marital contract.

I see a day coming when all victims of the 1960’s liberal feminist agenda will be able to sue the pants off the progressives for the hell they have unleashed on our society.

Bring it on

Vince: says:

08:59am | 18/03/11

You kidding me?  This article is ridiculous.  Let’s start with this:

“Do we really need Dads?  Absolutely. In an ideal world all children would grow up with both male and female adults to care for them.  But in the absence of a father, a father figure who might be a close male relative or family friend can do the job just as well. It just takes time, love and commitment. “

Er, which is it, then?  Dads are “ideal” or they can be easily replaced by any old “father figure” who wants the job?  Dad’s are not forks than can be replaced by spoons to do the job “just as well”.  How demeaning can you be?

Or this:

“It is possible to passionately support the right of dads in our society, and still support the right of single women and male same-sex couples to have kids.  You just have to accept that these days there are lots of different kids of dads.”

How absurd.  If you believe that “Dads” can be happily cut out of the equation altogether then you are not very “passionate” about their rights, are you?  And what’s this rubbish about “different kinds of Dads”.  Oh, I see, not only are Dads easily replacable by “father figures’, but we don’t even have to have a “father figure” - because there are lots of “different types” of Dad’s. 

What vague and utter rubbish.

”

Gavin says:

11:13am | 18/03/11

Vince, does it really matter if a “father” is not biological. Is this a necessity? If a child never knew that their dad was not their biological dad, would they feel worse off? Times are changing and there is squat you can do about it.

CJ Morgan says:

11:17am | 18/03/11

Like I said…

Tim says:

11:49am | 18/03/11

CJ Morgan,
nice self-fulfilling prophecy there.
Make a comment saying that that any one that disagrees with you (or the article) will be “bleating from insecure blokes”.
Logic fail.

CJ Morgan says:

12:25pm | 18/03/11

Quite so, Gavin.  To Vince and Tim, as I was saying to my eldest daughter the other day with respect to her kids, what they need is unconditional love, sustenance and protection.  Who they get it from isn’t really all that important.

Her elder son’s biological father died before he was born.  She’s since married a lovely bloke with whom she’s had another son.  Their blended family consists of my daughter and her husband, their kids from prior relationships and one child (so far) that they conceived together.

Things are going well for them, but the last thing the kids need is to feel difference from each other on the basis of biological paternity.  People like you guys who fetishise it can cause harm to kids like them inadvertently through reinforcing what are after all cultural ideas about parenthood.

Vince says:

12:36pm | 18/03/11

@Gavin, “does it really matter” -  well, I don’t know, do you?  Who said it matters: the author.  But she also says it doesn’t matter.  Which is it? 

Do you see the problem here?  Why have a society which, on the one hand, believes that the “ideal” family unit is to have the biological father present and then, at the same time, declare that it is just as acceptable to purposely create families that do not meet that ideal.

When planning families, surely we must make the “ideal” our intended outcome.  Why would we not?  Who are we really trying to please, here?  I sense that this is all about the rights of the people who want to have kids, as opposed to the rights of the kids themselves.

Lisa H. says:

12:49pm | 21/03/11

As a girl I lost my father at the age of 8, and I have to say from my childhood experience Dads are not replaceable with other men.

There is always a low-level sexual interference with the relationship, as they are not biologically related and have not been there since your birth. The sexual link the man has with your own mother is overt, and therefore perceived as somewhat tenuous, relying on her sex appeal.

No doubt mothers also are aware of this, it creates more pressure on the family all round.

It’s not a comfortable way for a little girl to grow up.

As they have arrived, so they leave… my mother had three ‘partners’, over her lifetime, after my father died, and although one in particular was quite a decent guy, no-one could ever replace my father.

‘Dad’ is not actually a work position selected even on merit, it’s selected on biology. For better or worse (excepting cases of abuse, of course, which is not the scope of the article), he is ‘Dad’, not a ‘role’ or casual job description.

MS says:

10:55am | 18/03/11

Well said. You acknowledge things are always the same, but anything else will be less than the best.

Jane says:

01:48pm | 18/03/11

And yet it has only been in the last 30 years that birth control has been so readily available that woman had much of a choice at all. Before then it was celebracy, abortion or single parenthood and no other options.

Bitten says:

12:06pm | 18/03/11

Scurrilous! Fantastic, I’m going to use that this weekend.

Anyone up for ‘heteroskedasticity’? Although it’s admittedly a little challenging to introduce in casual conversation.

Ray says:

12:31pm | 18/03/11

What’s your point ‘Bitten’? Plain English a bit of a streatch for you. It means ‘obscenely abusive’ which is quintessential to the comment. Oh fuc* I’ll have to explain that as well.

I’ll just dumb it down to be inclusive of the mentally challenged..

Bitten says:

12:46pm | 18/03/11

Sorry to upset you Ray, I actually was being sincere. I love it when people use more unusual language in their posts, it makes it so much more interesting. And, well, I am one of those who take simple pleasures, it’s true, such as using a new word in my vocab.

Up to this point, one of my favourites has been ‘heteroskedasticity’ but unless you’re chatting to post-grad students doing statistical analysis, it doesn’t come up much in conversation.

Bilby says:

01:01pm | 18/03/11

Some people wait for Eric(k) but he’s far too rational for me. I wait for the real pro. I wait for Ray

Ray says:

02:55pm | 18/03/11

OK Bitten. Hope I wasn’t coming in too hard and shooting from the hip. But there are some dimwits on line. Can’t read, can’t spell, can’t bowl.
Others just outright carn’ts.

LBB says:

03:04pm | 18/03/11

Gold Ray!

Sheridan says:

09:33pm | 18/03/11

Yer.. I’m nearly 30 and I still need a dad.. He passed away nearly 8 years ago and it’s a big hole in my life..

Your name:Kate says:

10:34am | 18/03/11

Actually Simon unless your reading reasearch by a church group you will find that children of Lesbians do better in society due to the planing that is involved in having the child.  But the what would the University of California and a 30 year study know.

Tim says:

12:34pm | 18/03/11

Kate,
that study was seriously flawed.
You say:
“unless your reading reasearch by a church group”
Well the research you quote was funded by a homosexual lobby group and run by a group of lesbian reseachers. Conflict of Interest much?
The participants of the research were all self-selected and the basis of comparison used in the research was an average of children of similar age. It was hardly rigorous.

another kate says:

03:27pm | 18/03/11

No Simon, “all the research” shows nothing of the sort.

The American Psychological Association, which has more than 155,000 members, found in 2004 after reviewing more than two dozen empirical studies concerning sexual orientation and marriage that: “There is NO scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.”

More than two dozen empirical studies, Simon.  That trumps your opinion and my anecdotes and any amount of internet preaching.  This is actual evidence, which is impressively consistent in its failure to identify deficits in the development of children raised in a lesbian or gay household.

And as for your scurrilous assertion that ” a group of lesbian researchers” is by definition unable to produce research about lesbian parenting, I don’t suppose the authors of “all the research” you referred to (but did not cite) were heterosexual and married?  Because if so, you’ll have to disregard any of their findings about heterosexual parenting.

AliceC says:

08:08am | 18/03/11

“To play with nature and recreate the rules to suit ourselves will only bring sadness all round.”

So technically, we should not be using modern medicine, as that prevents the natural process of eliminating weak genes. I will tell my Type 1 diabetic husband to stop taking his insulin, because he is playing with nature, and he should have died years ago!

Tim the Toolman says:

08:14am | 18/03/11

“Ideally, the focus of that family should look further to God for strength, happiness and guidance. “

Yeah, nothing like a bit of Zeus to keep the spirits up!  What’s that?  You don’t worship Zeus?  Oh, Thor then for strength…no?  I’m confused.  Which god?

Markus says:

08:36am | 18/03/11

Thor the mighty. Thor the brave. Crush the infidels in your way, by your hammer let none be saved.

Hobbs says:

09:08am | 18/03/11

@ Stewart. But where’s the evidence that a mum and dad is better for a kid. If you don’t conduct studies to prove your viewpoint, why should the anti-traditional values people believe you?

progressivesunite says:

09:16am | 18/03/11

Ah yes - a marriage certificate is an iron-clad protection against anything going wrong isn’t it? Kids have perfect upbringings if their parents are straight and married don’t they. Nothing dodgy ever goes on behind the white picket fence….child abuse happens elsewhere, domestic violence happens elsewhere….Follow the ‘recipe’ and you’ll be fine…

Tom says:

12:41pm | 18/03/11

@progressivesunite, thanks for your cliche ridden, stereo-typing drivel. The world has moved on a bit since then. Try to catch up.

progressivesunite says:

01:37pm | 18/03/11

@ Tom - phew that’s a relief. I hadn’t realised the world has moved on from abuse and violence and that sort of stuff - I wonder how that happened without me noticing?

I was making the point that the whole man/woman/marriage = happy kids model is a little simplistic and sometimes families can look great on paper but aren’t so good when you scratch beneath the surface….whatever point you’re making is somewhat unclear I’m afraid….

Tom says:

04:26pm | 18/03/11

@progressivesunite, ... yes, we already know that no arrangement is perfect. I did not notice anyone claiming such a thing. So, why try to assert that they are?

Rev says:

08:10am | 18/03/11

@Phil.

Do you use medical services of any kind?
Because based on your comments above, I would think there would be a bit too much intervention from science.

Survival of the fittest and all that.

Phil says:

08:31am | 18/03/11

@Rev,

Nope, havent been to a doctor since well maybe when I was a kid and had no choice.
There is also a difference in getting a broken arm fixed or other medical procedures to continue the same equivalent quality of life and selfishly having children!!

Rev says:

01:51pm | 18/03/11

If you’re using ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘too much intervention from science’, then forgive me if I apply them to you, as you wish to apply them to others.

No heart surgery for you old bean.
No chemo, no MRIs, no antibiotics, no checkups.  No free lollipops.
Then you’ll really find out if you’re from the deep end of the gene pool.

marley says:

07:45am | 18/03/11

You don’t need IVF to have children, artificial insemination will do for most healthy women.  And that doesn’t involve the wholesale murder of anything.

progressivesunite says:

09:20am | 18/03/11

Sigh. Back in the good old days where everyone was in a “normal” family, hey? What year exactly did abuse of children start? How about drunken alcoholic fathers or mothers hitting each other? Neglect? What year was that? I think you’ll find those things have always existed, and your utopia never actually did….

some people live in great families, others don’t - there’s nothing more to say really…but there’s no right or wrong way to do it

kerry says:

09:38am | 18/03/11

“Everbody knew who the hell they were then.” Or did they?
A friend, in his late 60s, recently discovered (through DNA testing for a medical condition in one of his grandchildren) that he is not the biological father of his three delightful sons.
When confronted with this, his wife tearfully admitted to secretly having AI because she didn’t want to him to have an infertility test when their attempts to fall pregnant failed.
Medical tests confirm he’s infertile and has been since a childhood bout of the mumps.
Although initially shocked, he’s very philosophical about it and has a fantastic relationship with each of his sons, and has an equally fantastic relationship with his grandchildren - even though he is not biologically related to any of them.
They all just love each other.

AliceC says:

12:31pm | 18/03/11

So what are the legitimate reasons to have kids then?

redvixen says:

12:53pm | 18/03/11

Couldn’t agree more.

Why do most people want to get pregnant with their own child?  Because they want to, because they want their ‘own’.  Sounds selfish to me.  Otherwise they’d be perfectly happy to get an already born unwanted child from somewhere else.  And that rarely happens unless they can’t have one of their own.

JohnB says:

02:33pm | 18/03/11

The legitimate reasons are AliceC exactly why we do it. We are animals. Our job is to pass our DNA to the next generation.

I was just refuting the statement that having a baby without a dad is selfish. It is. Like I’ve said before, woman can justify it, I’ve seen them justify the unjustifyable.

Emme says:

05:00pm | 20/03/11

Adoption is not as easy as you think. The time and money required to even attempt the adoption process in this country puts it out of reach for many. I would be ecstatic at the prospect of adopting a child who would not otherwise have a stable home. Unfortunately, I don’t have the minimum $180,000 required to try. Plus? Not even HALF of one IVF cycle is covered by Medicare. Just so you know.

JohnB says:

08:17am | 18/03/11

I feel this comment is slanted to vilify men, heterosexuals or both?

Don’t forget infanticide is committed by woman FAR more than that of men.

The Original Oz says:

08:28am | 18/03/11

and your point is Bitten??????  Child neglect and child abuse is not limited to heterosexual couples. However, in the press you hear about cases of abusive/neglectful mothers and fathers but mainly due to the insanity of political correctness cases of homosexual enacted child abuse/neglect are very rarely reported in the papers. If you are going to pronounce your prejudices against heterosexual couples then state your case clearly. What you did here is just a generalised, prejudiced rant.

progressivesunite says:

09:23am | 18/03/11

Oh please. The point Bitten was making is that the supposed “perfect” family form of hetro mum and dad isn’t always all it’s cracked up to be….Not such a hard argument to understand is it?

As for it being anti-male, were you able to get as far as the fourth sentence? How about the last?

Bitten says:

12:02pm | 18/03/11

Oh, dudes, seriously, learn to read. progressives has kindl offered to help you along, allow me to also assist.

1. Dad hurt baby.
2. Mum allowed left baby with violent dad.

Clearly I am pointing out that both parties are as guilty as each other in this event. So don’t attempt to purport a gender-bias where there isn’t one. Nice try though.

1. Dad is heterosexual;
2. Mum is heterosexual.

Clearly the point here is, heterosexuality doesn’t guarantee the safety of a child any more than homosexuality does. Sexuality of the parents is not a barrier to cruelty, it is in fact an irrelevance.

Therefore, we can’t neatly divide the world on the grounds of either gender or sexuality to determine who should be parents. It’s a shame, because that would certainly be easier, but the fact is, children can be abused, let down and killed by anyone, of any gender, of any sexual preference.

So it turns out, it’s hardly a rant and it’s hardly prejudiced. Well, not against gender or sexuality of either persuasion. How awkward for you two. It is however absolutely prejudiced against useless motherf*ckers who are out there making babies and hurting them and killing them. I make no apologies for that: any child abusers and murderers offended by my prejudice are invited to suck it.

Tim says:

12:17pm | 18/03/11

Bitten,
anecdotes aren’t a substitute for data.

Bitten says:

12:43pm | 18/03/11

Very true Tim, very true. However, from a child’s perspective, it is only their individual experience that matters to them. Who cares if 97% of parents do an ok job? Not the 3% of shaken babies, sexually abused and abandoned children.

I’m looking at one child who came into the world perfect and whole and left to the mercies of the human excretia that made her, has been broken. It may be ‘only’ one case to you. That one case sure as hell matters to me. There are those of us who only ever see ‘those types’ of cases.

One of the glories of not being an academic or a researcher is I get to be absolutely enraged by every single case of child abuse, no matter how ‘infrequent’ they are in the whole scheme of things.

My ‘y’ key is playing up = tedious.

MK says:

03:31pm | 19/03/11

@ Bitten

sorry sunshine, but the problem was that John B and Original Oz can’t read.
It’s that you didn’t write
You give one horrible example
of where the one man is violent, and you use the word heterosexual four times,

since you say nothing else and give no explanation
the only logical reading of it is you are painting heterosexual men as violent and associating heterosexual couples wiht violence and neglect.

If you had actually said initially,
that sexuality has no relevance on parenting, then you would have actually had a point,

You can be as angry as you want about every single case of child abuse and neglect,
but is there anything in what you said that in anway works towards reducinng child abuse and neglect?

Maybe you are some caseworker or healthworker who is helping abuse victims on the frontline

Jane says:

12:46pm | 19/03/11

Your lucky, my Dad wasnt the best. He excercised emotional abuse to boost his own ego but he also wasnt the worst Dad out there, he didnt hit or sexually abuse any of us. I got a better deal than my older brother, his Dad abandoned him at 6 months. We only found out last month he has been dead for 10 years and his family never bothered to let my brother know.

Do I think all fathers are like these two? No. I have seen some wonderful Dad’s, I have also seen some that make these two look amateur.

I believe that in a lot of cases, far more than someone who happened to have a “perfect” family could imagine, people’s life would be far better off without at least 1 of their parents in it.

What did I get from my Dad I didnt get from my Mum? Major insecurities. What I want to deprive my child of that? You bet!

zoe says:

07:03pm | 20/03/11

Jane I get that their are bad dads out there, in my case it was actually a bad mother so if you want to compare bad parenting stories I have a few of my own I could bring to the table.  Would my life have been better without my dad no way, his presence would deflect the worst of my mother and brought more balance to my life.  Would I have been better off without my mother possibly but my dad could well have struggled without her presence.  I just think this article is ridiculous in suggesting that we don’t need dads, based on my own experience I could argue that we don’t need moms but I understand that just because my own was less than wonderful, does not mean for the majority of people that is the case.  Most dads I know are pretty amazing people who love their kids the same with most mothers I know.  Why you wouldn’t want the best for your children I don’t know.  In my case I chose wisely the man I married who is now the father of my children.  I wouldn’t want to bring children into the world without that.

grumpy old man says:

08:31am | 18/03/11

I’m with you Tubesteak. If us mere males are so unneccessary, then leave us the hell alone, and get out of our pockets!

Blueblem says:

09:48am | 18/03/11

Im a female but absolutely agree with you. Why are these single women single? Probably they are selfish and cant compromise or dont want to make sacrifices like giving up their career or travel, setteling down etc. Then they wake up when they are 40 and realise they are missing out.  I was 19 when i met my now husband. I sacrificed my friends, going out social life etc to take on 2 jobs and build a future for us. And probably majority of the single women going for ivf partied like crazy till they were 35, or were to bussy to find a man coz of their work or friends.

AliceC says:

12:35pm | 18/03/11

What evidence do you have about these statements?

JohnB says:

02:27pm | 18/03/11

Oh you need evidence AliceC because you want to do what you want to do? There is so, so, so much documented evidence I wouldn’t know where to start…Try Maslow, ...

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/about-fathers

I don’t think there’s too much empirical data that shows it’s a bad thing

You go right ahead AliceC and do what you want, you’ll be able to justify it to yourself. I’ve watched plenty of woman do it.

Philip says:

03:38pm | 20/03/11

Good comment mate, very much true.

Susie says:

12:55am | 19/03/11

Committed homosexual couples, male or female are evolutionary dead ends. The progeny of these pairings are no more likely to produce homosexuals than a “normal” control group

DEAD WRONG BUDDY. No they are not more likely to produce gay children. By “normal” I guess you mean “common”?

Leah says:

09:20am | 18/03/11

“gender/sex be damned”

Well, you can believe that if you like. It doesn’t change the facts, and the facts, as many studies have demonstrated, is that children flourish much better when they have both male and female adults to care for them. A mother cannot demonstrate to her son how to be a good man, and a father cannot demonstrate to his daughter how to be a good woman.

Sure, having two loving women is better than having an unloving, abusive mother & father. But we are talking about the ‘ideal’ world, here.

simon says:

10:24am | 18/03/11

many studies have shown a correlation between children’s development and the stereotypical family unit for sure, but this doesn’t imply causation… and it’s certainly not valid to claim that this means that a random male, female and child group is always going to be a better environment for a child than a random female, female, child environment. it goes against the scientific method that gives the studies utilise, and rely on for credibility, to claim any blanket results. if anything you can conclude that it is possible to have harmful effects to children in all family groupings… and if you wanted to discriminate, it should be based on the character of the individuals involved in each situation.

Vince says:

03:27pm | 18/03/11

“All you need is Love” - great song.  Absurd description of reality.

Gavin says:

12:27pm | 18/03/11

“Paging Mr David Johnson - you have a phone call at reception - it’s the Dark Ages, and they demand that you return home.”

Julee says:

12:35pm | 18/03/11

As a five months pregnant, lesbian professional woman, I find your comment David Johnson to be offensive to say the least.  My baby boy will be starting his life under the love, care and guidance of two mums who planned and longed for him for many years and an extended family of uncles, aunts, grandparents and cousins who thankfully will not be subjecting him to the homophobic vitriole that is so prevalent on this thread.  Rather to the warm inclusiveness he deserves.

We did not cost the tax payer a red cent to conceive this child by the way, he was conceived without any medical intervention (yes, there are ways!) and with much love.

The same-sex parents we have in our lives are role models of the highest order (in comparison to the horrendous heterosexual models I have had the sad misfortune of witnessing) and their children are well adjusted, happy little people.

Richard M says:

03:16pm | 18/03/11

Just a few questions, Julee, before you go.  How is your little boy going to grow up having a healthy attitude to his gender or knowing what it means to be a man when you obviously have so much pent up hatred of heterosexuals generally, and men in particular?  Please try and remember that he will in all likelihood be heterosexual, notwithstanding all your hoping and upbringing.  How will you show him what it means to be a heterosexual man?  How will you explain to him that, because of the increasing attitude of women, as displayed in this article, that fathers are unimportant and unnecessary, his chances of having a family life, with a female partner and children are substantially reduced?  How do you suggest that society cope with the growing group of single, testosterone-filled, heterosexual young men who have not been, and have little chance of ever being, socialised and civilised by having a family of their own?  What will you teach him about his role in life regarding families and the raising of children?  Will you perhaps suggest he just try very hard to be homosexual or, even better, have a sex change?

bec says:

06:19pm | 18/03/11

Richard, are your parents cousins or something, which has resulted in an inferior intellect and no capacity for logic? Since when does being a lesbian mean you automatically hate men? Do you ask gay men if they hate women?

Richard M says:

06:49pm | 18/03/11

Oh, perlease, Bec.  Just read Julee’s post and think before posting.  References to “horrendous heterosexual models” and “homophobic vitriole” (sic) are surely telling.  (The term “homophobic”, by the way, is of course very useful. Like “racist”, it can usefully be spat at anyone who disagrees with you.)
Anyway, can I suggest you read my post again?  This was hardly its main point, which was much more substantial and important than mere name calling.  I put forward real issues about what Julee will tell her son about his role in society. The usual feminist abuse will not suffice as a real response.

Denise says:

02:47pm | 18/03/11

did you go and ask the boys if they were fatherless?....generalisation’s arn’t helpfull.
I was a single mother and was able to find “significant other” male role models for my son. My son is now 24 and running a resturant as a Head Cheff….
We can argue this all you want but women dont have a choice in being single always….Where is our compassion?

kate says:

03:43pm | 18/03/11

So I presume you’ve never used taxpayer funded hospitals?  Never claimed anything on medicare?  Never used a bulk-billing doctor? 

If you smoke, should taxpayers pick up the tab for your lung cancer?

If you’re obsese, should taxpayers pay when you have a heart attack?

Lifestyle, choice, eligibility ... they’re slippery slopes.

JohnB says:

11:43am | 18/03/11

Yeah not cool AJ. Lot’s of fathers are drop kicks, as are lots of mums. You seem pretty well adjusted, I would guess he was okay until you were about 6?...The old saying goes something like “give me the boy til he’s 6 and i’ll give you the man”!!!!!

Both my mum and dad were far too interested in their careers, and ruined four young lives; now well and truly adults. Well actually only 3 made it.

So I’m all for good parenting. I truly do believe it’s hard to beat mum and dad in the same house though…My ex decided she’d exercise her liberated right , had an affair and left…And the cycle continues.

zoe says:

12:39pm | 18/03/11

‘I think the 50% divorce rate is further evidence that many modern men increasingly don’t want to be involved in the parenting process anyway’. 
Here’s a few of the reasons I have heard women have given as their reason to leave their husbands and children, ‘I was bored’, ‘I don’t think I ever really loved him.’ ‘He would completely ignore me and play with the kids’, ‘I never had me time’.  You still think it’s only dads opting out of the parenting role?  I don’t know specific stats on the divorce rate but as far as I am aware most divorces are instigated by women.

LauraBoBaura says:

12:50pm | 18/03/11

“50% divorce rate is further evidence that many modern men increasingly don’t want to be involved in the parenting process anyway”.... What a load of BS. How could you have possibly deducted that (bias aside).
1. How do you know that it is men instigating all divorces
2. How many of these divorces happen in marriages with children?
3. You cannot be serious?

Markus says:

01:01pm | 18/03/11

Correct Zoe, 70% of divorces are instigated by women.

CK says:

01:09pm | 18/03/11

So Zoe, what you’re saying is that the reasons you have heard women give as their reasons to leave their husbands and children are that “its all about me, me, me, me”. This further reinforces Boss Jones’ point.

Tim says:

01:28pm | 18/03/11

Boss Jones,
“The progressive left can point you to many studies that show a child does better with two mummies and no father.”
Really can they? Where?
And please no propaganda studies paid for and run by the homosexual lobby.

Boss Jones says:

03:49pm | 18/03/11

Yes, but the women are only divorcing their husbands because the husbands have generally gotten lazy, fat, and broken their wedding vows.

There wouldn’t be a feminist movement if husbands just lived up to their promises.

kate says:

04:05pm | 18/03/11

@Tim - you want to know where the studies are? 

Try here:  Australian Institute of Family Studies found that :the best
interests of the child can be served in a variety of family
structures including lesbian and gay parented families” : http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2002/fm63/rm.pdf

Or here:  Australian Psychological Society finds that “parenting practices and children’s outcomes in families parented by lesbian and gay parents are likely to be at least as favourable as those in families
of heterosexual parents” :  http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

Or here:  Population Association of America finds that “that children of same-sex couples are as likely to make normal progress through school as the children of most other family structures: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/demography/v047/47.3.rosenfeld.html

Or here:  Article in American Psychologist finds that ““If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. ”  http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/AP_06_pre.PDF

I could go on.  And on.  And on.  But I think I’ve made my point.

Where is YOUR evidence to the contrary?

Albert says:

08:13am | 19/03/11

Within the 50% divorce rate, the divorce is initiated by the women at a rate of x3 the rate of men pulling the trigger. Switch to the family court and see a furher 93% of custody cases award primary care to the mother

LauraBoBaura says:

10:23am | 18/03/11

I agree, the only thing that really matters, is the welfare of the child & that they are loved.
I do believe however, that having both your parents (whether gay or hetero) does help substantially.

My partner’s father abandoned him when he was 2 & moved to Indonesia, he has just recently gotten back in touch with him in the last year or so & he still has a lot of resentment towards his dad.

He had other male role models in his life, who loved him & taught him about ‘being a man’ - but there is a lot of psychological pain that comes from the idea of being abandoned, although he had a happy childhood.

Elphaba says:

10:58am | 18/03/11

@LBB, I think two parents is the optimum, for sure.  My parents are still happily married more than 30 years later, and I think it made a tremendous difference to my world view.

But when people sneer at gay parents, or single ‘selfish’ people having babies, they’re also unwittingly sneering at all those single parents who had a marriage break down, or their partner died - and I think that’s wrong.  You can’t nominate circumstance as a get out of jail free card for those people.  Either people can raise a baby on their own, or in a relationship that defies tradition, or they can’t.  I happen to think they can, and good bloody luck to them.

I will however, add, that women who go on ‘insemination tours’ - go OS to get impregnated by a random stranger - are boneheads and probably shouldn’t be raising kids.

kerry says:

04:22pm | 18/03/11

Not sure that I agree with you, john smith. There are plenty of examples where men have raised girls sans mother and women have raised boys sans father with level-headed adults as a result.
As for the sons of single mothers, a lot of men who are upwards 60 years today are the product of single mothers (through loss of fathers from war), and these blokes seemed to get on with it..

Davido says:

03:55pm | 18/03/11

A very good point!

There are ivkids who are desperate to be adopted by families but we are paying for IVF.

Matt says:

09:43am | 18/03/11

What?!  How did you jump to that conclusion you moron?  Whether you ‘need’ gays or lesbians isn’t relevant.  And the answer is actually no - dads are not a necessity.  I grew up in a hetrosexual family without a dad.  Not needed at all.  Look up the divorce rates mate and see how many people do without a dad - and mostly it’s the dad’s choice to be absent. 

Where exactly did your last line come from?  At least gays and lesbians aren’t over-populating the world with welfare babies that grow up as useless society members bludging off the state and calling themselves Ripa..

Markus says:

01:04pm | 18/03/11

“Look up the divorce rates mate and see how many people do without a dad - and mostly it’s the dad’s choice to be absent.”
Nope, 70% of the time it’s the mum’s choice to ensure the father is forcibly absent.

Tim says:

01:56pm | 18/03/11

@Markus - “Look up the divorce rates”.

Or look up the actual number of intact families: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4442.0

In particular the bit that says:
“The majority of all couple and one parent families in 2006-07 with co-resident children aged 0 to 17 years were intact couple families (1.9 million or 73% of all families with children aged 0 to 17 years).”

So most kids do grow up with their own mum and dad. If it wasn’t that way, there would be social dysfunction on a massive scale.

The divorce rate is inflated by serial divorcees - it doesn’t reflect how many kids are growing up without dads. Once you have been divorced, you are more likely to divorce a second time. This bumps up the figures.

Tromp says:

01:58pm | 18/03/11

Matt - ‘At least gays and lesbians aren’t over-populating the world with welfare babies”.

Ironic comment considering the article is about gays and lesbians accessing IVF and writing it off on medicare.

A father (or mother) figure can never replace having the real thing. Kids grow up pretty well adjusted without both genders in the house, but never lie to yourself that either mum or dad can be replaced.

Squeeze the Middle says:

01:24am | 19/03/11

But Tim.  Of those 27% where the 0-17 resident child’s parents are separated, was the separation initiated by the mother 70% of the time?

marley says:

01:00pm | 18/03/11

Well, I dunno, Shane - I still quite enjoy a spot of “heterosexual attraction” - and my partner and I are considerably beyond the age where procreation is a factor, much less the entire purpose of it all.  With your view, you could be in for a very boring old age….

Shane says:

01:43pm | 18/03/11

Congratulations Marley in keeping the fire burning, but there’s a reason the libido is deafening when we are most fertile, then quietens down for our Autumn years. It’s nature. The desire to procreate is inexorably linked with heterosexual attraction. Why are a man and woman attracted to each other? Not for sexual gratification and orgasm, but in order to advance the species through mating. Gay people who claim to lack this attraction should, by all logic, lose the desire to procreate. Hence my frim belief that gay people who wish to be parents, who are trying to have their cake and eat it to, are not truly and biologically gay.

Bilby says:

02:28pm | 18/03/11

Shane - Clearly the desire to procreate is *not* inexorably linked with heterosexual attraction or we wouldn’t be having this discussion would we? The logical gap is that your demanding that nature be consistent with your conceptual framework, rather than seeing that we don’t know enough to apply logic at all. Logic can only work in those limited circumstances where we actually know all the factors and the way they interact. When it comes to human nature, we’re a long way off that.

Shane says:

02:40pm | 18/03/11

Bilby, if heterosexual attraction and the desire to procreate are not linked, then why does heterosexual sexual attraction exist at all?

Bilby says:

03:00pm | 18/03/11

Shane - Fair question, and one I have no answer for. Let me instead give you a story: I have been heterosexually attracted to my wife for going on 2 decades, but only had the desire to have children for less than 1. Why the gap? Shouldn’t I have had the desire to have children all along?

Squeeze the Middle says:

01:50pm | 18/03/11

Isn’t that the point of 1984? Watering down the Darwinian biological bond of bloodline. It’s OK, family doesn’t matter.  Big Brother loves and will care for you.

As for Erick’s point.  It would happen a lot sooner if commercial surrogacy wasn’t illegal.  Wouldn’t it?

Miles says:

02:21pm | 18/03/11

Apart from time, love and commitment, it also takes MONEY (a fact ignored in the article).  Now where is this money going to come from in the absence of child support / second income?  That’s right…the taxpayer.  We should NOT be subsidising and in fact encouraging permanent welfare recipients.

AdamC says:

10:25am | 18/03/11

I think I’m feeding a troll here, but I wonder if you have considered what happens in a single parent family when said parent becomes ill or otherwise unable to cope with the stresses of earning an income and raisig kids? I suspect, in those circumstances, you may gain a better insight into why we came up with dual-parent families in the first place.

LauraBoBaura says:

10:56am | 18/03/11

Aitch, while you do raise a valid point.. if we don’t have kids, who is going to look after me when I get old & change my adult diapers when I become incontinent?

Despite the fact I’ll have nobody to ramble on about how things where ‘when I was your age’

It’s all about self preservation.

Shane From Melbourne says:

09:57pm | 18/03/11

We’ll import them, like we do with everything else in Australia….

marley says:

11:15am | 18/03/11

Look, forget the sarcasm for a minute, and think about the wife of a guy killed in a mine or traffic or nuclear accident.  She’s alone through no choice or fault of her own - should she just give up her kids, or should she try to fill the void left by the absence of the male parent?

Ray says:

12:03pm | 18/03/11

Marley, how about we think of the guy killed in the mine.

Oh Fuc* he was male.

Where to now.

Boss Jones says:

11:41am | 18/03/11

Maybe but where are these metastudies you speak of?

Unless the social cons actually research this stuff properly, no one’s gonna take them seriously….

If single motherhood costs the taxpayer thousands of dollars more than a child with a mum and dad, why don’t conservatives explain this to the wider community. Why do conservatives struggle so much to articulate their views?

kate says:

04:09pm | 18/03/11

I think you’ll find that those studies find that children fare better with two PARENTS in a loving stable RELATIONSHIP.

The gender of the parents, and the legal status of the relationship, are not determining factors.  (And yes, I can cite my sources - can you?)

Squeeze the Middle says:

11:00am | 18/03/11

Prove it.  Prove that your generalisation are anything close to accurate?

Muttley says:

11:10am | 18/03/11

what a sad, bitter individual. Lets hope you dont have kids to pass this vitriol onto

Thommo says:

12:12pm | 18/03/11

women are men without reason, logic or forethought.
they fed the kids frozen meals in the microwave, wash them in the local pool and use their own houses to operate suburban brothels.
*rolls eyes*

LauraBoBaura says:

12:18pm | 18/03/11

You don’t need proof when you have opinions like that!
*facedesk*

fairsfair says:

12:25pm | 18/03/11

I appreciate that circumstance may see the unavailablility of both a mother and a father who love each other, but those family units aside I totally agree with you Heath.

As a female, I would never *choose* to bring a child into this world on my own. I love my father, but he was that MY father - he should not have to be the primarily male figure in my (figurative) son’s life. The generation gap is far to extreme for it to be fair on either of them. But if you had to do it, you would do your best I guess.

I love my dad and he has his faults. I didn’t have a perfect life but for the most part I was lucky to be in a family that was functional. I can’t pretend that that does not shape my opinions on parenthood and planned conception. It shapes everyones and it is really for that reason alone that you can’t judge anyone else for their views.

Everyone focuses on what kids “need” through the prism of their own inherant selfishness. Ie - what keeps them safe, fed, educated and unabused via their own morals and lifestyle choices. Don’t get me wrong - this is the priority, but what about what kids want? And when I say want I don’t mean petulent kids requests for a PS3.  I rememeber what it was like to be a kid (it wasn’t that long ago) and needing things and wanting things to achive what was “childhood happiness” are two very different things. I remember wanting to get off the shool bus to my mum waiting for me. I wanted my dad to be interested in my life. I wanted to do things together with my parents as family. Kids don’t understand nor care about bills that need paying or the fact that you can’t go to the park because the yard needs to be mowed. I resented my parents because they were more interested in their dream of acreage than taking us to the creek. As an adult I know that none of it matters now - but at the time learning how to service the lawnmower at age 11 just so I could spend time with my dad is not really high on the list of childhood memories.

Your name:Miles says:

02:30pm | 18/03/11

if anything we are devolving - we are encouraging the less fit (‘fit’ in a biological sense) to breed more whilst our most fit breed less (due to lack of financial support).  I just don’t why we want to encourage those that can least afford it to have more welfare dependent kids??  The argument is that ‘they will be the taxpayers of the future’ but the reality is, they are more likely to be the welfare recipients of the future.

Squeeze the Middle says:

12:38am | 19/03/11

@ Miles.  Because one day those kids will vote. Who do you think they’ll vote for? How’s that for throwing some burley into the water?

Bilby says:

02:47pm | 18/03/11

One important thing that a man brings to parenting that a woman can’t is teaching a kid how a man (specifically) should relate to a woman within an intimate relationship. Our girls watch us to see how they should be treated by the special man in their lives, and our boys learn how to treat a woman. Funnily enough it doesn’t necessarily have to be a good role model. I learned as much by seeing what upset my mum as by seeing what made her happy and I’ve used those lessons in my marriage. These lessons can be generalised to a certain extent, but I am not a generic person. I’m a dad/husband, so I want to know how to be a good one of those.

Ray says:

03:02pm | 18/03/11

Common sense.

Then throw in integrity, honour and a sense of personal presence without the hand ringing claims for equality, which terminally limit mental development.

If you are serious you have no concept of human nature. Mainly because it is debilitated by a need to justify yourself by refusing acknowledgement of men having any redeeming gender specific features. One is to remove emotion from thought processes and justify means on their merit.

Please do not ask for an explanation. My time is short and you seem like hard work.

I’d say if you did a legit surrogacy or IVF interview you would be refused.

Paul Horn says:

03:34pm | 18/03/11

Well two mummies I can give you a list if you so desire. Having grown up in a rough suburb and having been involved in few crimes while growing up it was my father that pulled me into line. Had my mother been a single mum I and my brother would have ripped her to shreds. We would both be doing hard time in gaol now , probably for break enter, car jacking and God knows what else. It was always interesting to me that mates whose parents divorced and were raised by their mums ended up pursuing criminal interests much much more frequently than mates of parents who were happily married.  The statisitics are clear on this. 

It was in fact my Father that inspired me to do better than he, to gain an education, to develop a work ethic and learn a huge amount from the way he approached problems and interacted with people. It was he that bought some objectivity and calm into family crises when my mother was simply an emotional blubbering mess. 

Men react differently to situations than women which have a major impact on the socialisation of boys. I feared and respected my Father whereas I had no fear whatsoever of my mother. In fact no woman could have created the same kind of environment that my father was able to

However as a couple of lesbians having boys would be anathema to you so please stick to little girls if you must procreate.

a dad with a wonderful wife says:

04:01pm | 18/03/11

“I learned as much by seeing what upset my mum as by seeing what made her happy and I’ve used those lessons in my marriage. “

To upset your wife? 

TM-
Perspective. You watch your youngun go through trying to make sense of things in life and help him understand how his mind, society and body chemicals are telling him to do different things (often different directions at the same time) and how to temper and control it. There isn’t going to be a 1 2 3 point list, just because no one child is the same and teaching them how to control themselves to become a decent man in a wider society is different for each of em.

Being there the full time you can get a much better understanding of where he is at and how life’s little details have affected him. This is where I think the father figure arguement breaks down, father figures fill in a lot of gaps, but they simply are not full time.

Ray says:

04:07pm | 18/03/11

Furthermore Two Mummies, you could list the inherent discrete benefits two mumies bring to the table. I presume a little world of make believe would be high on the list.

The appalling indicment I witness is that most lesbians oscillate between camps and eventually end up in partnership with a male. The ones that go the distance usually end up with a younger woman, where one plays the ‘auntie’ role.

Makes me puke.

As for role model for kids, I don’t think we need to expose them to the norm being humans where the wiring is crossed. If you don’t think your wiring is crossed society will not have the strength to say so. So you can be a role model by default.

I do not wish to be disrespectful and indeed do respect genuine ‘gays’ for want of a better word. Point is many are not genuine, merely lost in transition, socially trendy, or unfortunately cross wired.

That does not mean we all have to embrace some misguided ‘rights’. And it doesn’t mean you are less respected as a person. Just not entitled to enforce self believing rights on the majority.

Squeeze the Middle says:

12:32am | 19/03/11

Probably not a lot Two Mummies.  And vice versa. So lets decriminalise commercial surrogacy.

Can you then perhap see that both genders aren’t being entirely open minded, fair and/or honest?

joe says:

08:22pm | 19/03/11

Teenage boys need a male role model. No matter how strict you think you are as a woman,chances are he’ll walk all over you when his male hormones start kicking in.He needs a male to show him how to be a man,so he knows how to act in society,and how to deal with different situations as man. No matter how much you try,you are still a woman. You can read all the info,watch the dvd’s,but you are still A WOMAN..You don’t have his thoughts and feelings because you are a woman, he is a man…This is nature..It happens in humans just as it happens in the animal kingdom. You may think what I have said isn’t important..but..as a mother of 3 teenage boys I know it to be fact..Boys need fathers…Whether modern society likes it or not…it is a fact of nature..

Squeeze the Middle says:

06:43am | 20/03/11

Following on from Joe, twomummies.  In a world of perfect information, maybe things could be different. Appart from the fact that our so called experts are still trying to understand the biochemical differences between men and women. Even societies forget what they’ve learnt. Or develops bias depending on where it is along the learning curve. And that bias then also steers the direction of learning. So what chance does an individual have.  You are what you eat, and you are what you’ve learnt. It would be rather conceited to say that you twomummies aren’t what you choose to read AND then what you choose to believe.And then you’ll have a bias towards what you choose to practice.

While society works hard at perfect information, we continue practices that we know work for our society.  And oneof those practices is diversity. Men and women are different because of hormones. By cutting out one gender as a parent, you are changing that diversity mix. Is that OK? Well considering that many hetero households don’t really embrace diversity, probably not.  But you are changing the mix. Non biological fathers aren’t the same quite as step fathers. Quite simply because of moral hazard. When push comes to shove, a kid can always just say, you’re not my real dad (mum).The benefit of the diversity not longer operate effectively or at all. Same thing goes for Sami.  She may think she’s providing diversity, but it’s not to the same degree as having and step dad and certainly no to the same degree as two parents of equal biological standing.

As for “this elusive ‘maleness” and ‘fathering’?  Read ‘The wonder of boys’.  Haven’t read it yet?  See what I mean about selective learning?

Squeeze the Middle says:

02:20pm | 20/03/11

Correction.  Drop the not from the end of my “By cutting out one gender as a parent, you are changing that diversity mix. Is that OK? Well considering that many hetero households don’t really embrace diversity, probably not.”

Steve says:

01:51am | 21/03/11

Masculinity. Paternal love & guidance. The instinctual feeling of safety under the care of the stronger gender. The first male to accept them and give them confidence when dealing with other adult males.

Did you not have a father? If you do, then he musn’t have been very good if you don’t already know the answer to this question.

make my dinner? says:

03:44pm | 18/03/11

want some lemon and lime to go with your bitter?

marley says:

04:03pm | 18/03/11

Wow. Nice rant.  I suppose you have statistics to back up your claim that three quarters of successful people came from fatherless homes?  No, I didn’t think so. 

And if you want kind, mature, responsible males, well, why don’t you treat the males in your life as if they are kind, mature and responsible - because most of them are (well, if they’re over the age of 17 and not professional football players, anyway).  No pill required.

Chris says:

09:12pm | 18/03/11

“Millions of people were brought up after WW1 and WW2 without fathers”
Maybe this is why we have all these issues today.

Squeeze the Middle says:

01:10am | 19/03/11

Why stop at WW1 and WW2? How many fathers do you think were killed in battle over the last 4000 years?  Then of course there’s all those mothers who died in child birth.  And we still managed to develop art, literature, democracy, law, agriculture, astronomy, etc.

Decriminalise commercial surrogacy. Make the right to single parenthood equal.

If the men around appear self absorbed and like they can’t look after themselves? Does that mean that all men are as such?  Or simply that the men around YOU are self absorbed and can’t look after themselves. Or maybe they just appear that way to you, and simply have different priorities.  Specifics?

Brett says:

04:00pm | 18/03/11

I agree Rossco and if the feminists ever find out who we are, may god have mercy on us both

Susie says:

12:58am | 19/03/11

Lazy, incapable? Finding a partner? Have you looked at the men out there? Who would want them?

Hands up all the intelligent, good looking, even tempered, loving men out there who want to be partnered?

kerry says:

04:28pm | 18/03/11

I blame the sub-editors of Punch for a controversial headline.
. It should read: Do we really need parents? Full stop.

The answer is a resounding NO. As long as kids have people who love and care for them, they’ll get along OK.

bec says:

06:20pm | 18/03/11

Wow, *women* are delusional? What makes you so wonderful personally? At the moment, all I see in you is a non-renewable waste of natural resources that contributes nothing but horseshit to the world.

Me says:

10:36pm | 18/03/11

So steve…what did YOUR mother offer after YOUR birth???  Are you really that important….....I think not according to your statement.

Sime says:

01:03am | 19/03/11

Well said mate.  These types of article are sheer nonsense.

Paul Horn says:

08:53am | 21/03/11

For the same bloody reason Susie that it is so important for women to be involved in the working world! For centuries nay millenia men have been responsible for protecting, building, planning and generally advancing society while women have spent their time gossiping, picking fruit and nurturing children. It is an instinctive genetic difference.

So if you question why men should be involved in raising chilren then obviously your desire to work and be economically independent should also be questioned!

And you will find that unlike our society all past cultures have had strict social structures that were absolutely necessary to ensure harmony between the sexes. It is always strange to me Susie that the greatest hatred between men and women exists in the West. Other cultures where women are treated far far worse have no such issues.

Germain Greer said it best when she stated that feminisms greatest contribution was the ability of women to walk out of marriages and that never before in history had so much hatred been fostered between the sexes, thanks to feminism!

Do your research Susie!

stephen says:

11:04am | 19/03/11

At Trixie’s Midnite Diner I already tried ter buy me an ideal lesbian partner but they ain’t ready yet : (can’t get their knees ter bend).

sally says:

07:59pm | 19/03/11

Hugh, what planet do you come from?

Science Fiction says:

09:57am | 19/03/11

Of course. We all need a Mother and Father for a balanced upbringing.  If you want children, conceive them in the normal fashion.  Otherwise don’t have a child and be so selfish. This world is coming undone.  If the men are not around all the time it means they are out working to feed, house and clothe his family.  Why because it is the Father’s natural love for his family, and trust in the Mother to do as needed.  It was tough in earlier days to make a living.  I think Susie went back to anthropology. (what was that all about?) Now, children generally have more contact with their fathers because they don’t have to go out and hunt to feed them.  I couldn’t imagine a world all female.  Yuk. Back stabbing bitches and hormones all over the place.  I love men as they provide balance.  I prefer working with men than with females, it keeps me sane.  Just a thought - get Scotty to beam you all up to another planet in fantasyland where this sort of notion has already been covered in science fiction.  Have any of you seen “Alien”?  What did Ripley say? I seem to remember it was “Get away from her you bitch.”
Yes there are some ugly men out there too and there are some ugly women, once agian they balance each other out.

marley says:

09:20am | 20/03/11

Figures show that 95% of all statistics quoted on blog sites are invented.

Philip says:

03:49pm | 20/03/11

Well if women are claiming they don’t need men, then they can bloody do it themselves.

Philip says:

03:56pm | 20/03/11

As a male who grew up without a mother since I was 3 years old only having my father who was in the Army full time raise me and my brother…I did pretty bloody well without a mother. I guess women are as obsolete as they claim their male counterparts are.

Lisa H. says:

12:59pm | 21/03/11

The fact will surely be proven one day that there is a chemical pressure on women to have children, that is stronger even than man’s desire to have sex regardless of consequences.

Having a child is such a physically, socially and financially risky thing for a woman to do… how can you not recognise that there’s a biological imperative there?

To socially compel women to be sexually active without ever being able to naturally finish the job and give birth…perhaps one day we will see that in some cases, it is experienced as a type of sexual exploitation.

Squeeze the Middle says:

08:51am | 20/03/11

“men have only recently given a damn about raising children” Prove it.

As for the ‘battle of the sexes’.  Simple really, because it’s an equity thing. Men can’t give birth. Hence, in comes equity into the transaction. I.e. commercial transactions. And that brings in all the same competitve leverage and advantage tactics that are out there in the commercial world. Like disingenuous and arguably flawed dissing of the competitors. Forming industry peak bodies to lobby government. While the fe-me-nist domestic complex try to dress all women’s issues as ‘equality’ many of them are actually about equity.

De-criminalise commercial surrogacy for a start and we’ll see how things can change.

Squeeze the Middle says:

02:17pm | 20/03/11

I.e. you can’t get away with unfair play in a gay relationship as easy as you can in a hetero relationship.  You can’t get away with gender difference BS.  I.e. women are this and men are that. Why? Because you’re both the same gender in a gay relationship.  Whereas in a hetero relationship it just take one party to try and get leverage out of some aspect of gender differences to try and get a competitive advantage and its game on. Inequity gets countered with inequity and it quickly spirals out of control.

Dommi says:

12:59am | 21/03/11

Hey Squeeze, I am not here to educate you to a University level. Research in the Anthropological area and you’ll find that in MOST cultures man have absolutely nothing to do with children - oh except when they take the boys at puberty and separate them from women, by then they are not children.

The way i see it Western men are just peeved because their power base is dwindling, they moan they don’t know what it is to be a man these days because they don’t hold all the power anymore…boo hooo, figure it out, you have a brain don’t you? I take that back, from most of the comments on this art5icle men are not thinking but knee jerking..

Squeeze the Middle says:

04:13pm | 21/03/11

I’ll take your word re raising children. But WHY is it that “in MOST cultures man have absolutely nothing to do with children”?

I agree with StefanR’s posting on Punch ‘All-Men-(and-Women)-Were-Not-Created-Equal’. “gender essentialism and indeed - the patriarchy - exists to the detriment of men as well as women. Feminist literature has been saying this for years.”

“unsuitable the pairing of men and women really are” Again, I ask why?

I’m totally open to the feminist conclusion of the myth of gender. See Benjamin Payne’s Punch article of 6/12/10 I.e. that it is largely a social construct.  Do you believe in the myth of gender Dommi?

So gender is a myth and is propagated to dominate the masses for a patriarchy. That’ll explain why men and women are not on the same page.  I.e. because society is manipulated so that the genders do fight.  Divide and conquer. Congratulations for taking the red pill and stepping outside the social construct Dommi.

Obliterating gender differences and roles will probably improve my socio-economic status.  So bring it on. I’m all for equality.  Which is why I suggest de-criminalising commercial surrogacy? Then a hetero man like me can raise a child on his own if he wants to. You have a problem with that?

Here we are in what appears to be a transition phase of Western society. And yes, some lazy ignorent men or manipulative men are squealing.

But fighting inequality with inequality must only be targeted at the patriarchy where it belongs.  And not at men who are just as much the target of the patriarchy as their equivilently resourced women down at street level. Otherwise that’ll just end up serving the patriarchy just nicely thank you very much.

Do we really need mums?  I’d say that women’s ‘power base’ is more at threat from commercial surrogacy than men’s is from the current batch of social changes.  But that’s for the next chapter in the transition.  Can we hurry up and get there already.

Squeeze the Middle says:

02:06pm | 20/03/11

More tellingly Colin - if it is OK to deny a child of it’s biological father then why is it not OK to deny a child of its biological mother.  In fact commercial surrogacy is a criminal offence.

This looks like just another Punch article on gender equity disguised as gender ‘equality’ where the equity issue goes unanswered.

This constant propaganda trying to redefine terms such as ‘e.g. ‘gender equality’  and e.g. ‘domestic violence’ is beginning to resemble the practice of totalitarian states use of propaganda as ‘re eductation’ to manufacture consent for something that is a question of equity and not a question of right/wrong.The force power of equality resembles post Napoleonic military. Whereas in disputes in industry are matters of equity.  I.e. what’s a fair trade.  And parallel with the rise of the military-industrial complex has been the rise of the feminist-domestic complex.  I.e. hitching the fortunes of individual companes to the power of a military. I.e. hitching the fortunes of individual to the power of idealogically correct feminism.

Alternatively it resembles the practice of front-running.  I.e. re-packaging or stretching a definition, i.e. the truth, to make money for one group of ‘in the know’ people from another goup of people that aren’t wised up to the game. Information asymetry.

Colin says:

07:26pm | 21/03/11

Your situation has nothing in common with the injustice that Susie O’Brien and other feminists are promoting. Presumably you didn’t deliberately conceive your child with the deliberate intention to deny him/her a normal relationship with his/her father.

It is the intentionality of the injustice that makes Susie O’Brien’s ideas so obscene.

JR says:

10:56pm | 20/03/11

It’s already sorted, Grace. It’s been working for thousands and thousands of years. It’s “equality” people like you that manage to ruin everything. You have your wonderful little ideals, your perfect political ideologies, but you don’t have common sense.

Colin says:

08:06pm | 21/03/11

Wow Grace, I’m yet to hear anyone say children don’t have right to be loved, cared for, and cherished. So why raise it? On the issue of donor sperm the only people wanting to deny children any of their fundamental rights are people like you and Susie O’Brien. Why do you want to deliberately deny another human being their right to a normal loving relationship with their biological father? The use of donor sperm necessarily denies a child this fundamental right.

Grace says:

09:14pm | 21/03/11

It’s uninformed, uneducated opinions such as Colin’s and JR’s that keep children in orphanages, and keep single men and women from adopting. It’s apparent that you have done no research into this matter but have a very set idea that children need two parents of separate genders because of deeply ingrained ideals of nuclear families. There is no “fundamental” right when it comes to knowing ones biological father/mother. It’s something for the people who raise them, care for them, and nurture them to decide, because they are the child’s TRUE parent/s.

Richard says:

05:37am | 22/03/11

Grace,
So you believe that a person has the ‘right’ to use IVF or a sperm donor, yet the child that is created as a result does not have the ‘right’ to find out where they came from?  You believe it is the sole decision of the people who raised the child, and the child has no say in this?
Sorry, I may be the only one that feels this way, but that is absolutely ridiculous.

Richard says:

05:33am | 21/03/11

I don’t think anyone is saying that both your biological mother and father need to be present in order for the child to have success in life; the point is that the special connection between the biological parents and their child is not something that can be replaced, ever.
I’m sure there are numerous children that grew up with only their father present that have also led successful lives - although from some comments here it would seem some people really have a hard time believing that.

Colin says:

07:47pm | 21/03/11

Adoption is a necessary procedure to provide a parentless child a safe and loving environment to grow. One could say that adoptive parents “rescue” a child who, for what ever reason, cannot be raised by his/her natural parents. Adoption is, or at least should be, child centred.

The use of donor sperm to create children has nothing to do with childrens’ welfare. It is entirely adult centred (usually woman centred). A child created through donor sperm hasn’t been “rescued”, as with an adopted child, instead he/she has been “used” to fulfil the desire of an adult woman who, because of her own self-absorbed ego, puts her desires to possess a child above the rights of that child to know and love his/her natural father.

The use of donor sperm is not an act of love, but one of selfishness - the opposite of love.

Brenddon says:

09:40pm | 21/03/11

Colin, you remind me of the religious zealots I used to have to put up with; constantly bombarding people with unsupported ideals based on “morals” simply because their narcissism lead them to think they’re somewhat intelligent.

Sperm donors have the right to donate their sperm, just as much as hetero, homosexual and single women have the right to access the banks. I have very little to do with my father, and yet, I respect my fellow mankind and step back from delving into people’s personal lives, unlike you.

And quiet frankly, what can you do? Absolutely nothing, because single women can have children via IVF when they like, just as lesbians can, and women who have decided to be a surrogate for gay men.

Obviously, you’re a very angry man.

Grow up.

Richard says:

05:31am | 22/03/11

Brenddon, reading yours and Colin’s post, I can’t help but feel that yours in the ‘angrier’ of the two.  I don’t agree with what Colin has written, but I disagree even more with the way to replied to it.  You come across and arrogant and childish; certainly not the way to advance your beliefs.

You chastise Colin for being a ‘religious zealot’ and having ‘unsupported ideals’, yet you offer no support of your own ideals, and tell him to ‘grow up’ for voicing his opinion; something that everyone is entitled to.  Also, I am not religious by any stretch of the imagination, but even I can’t see where in Colin’s post he refers to any form of religion.  Can you?

Frankly, your attitude towards an opinion that you don’t agree with bothers me a great deal more than Colin’s opinion.  It appears that you are the type of person who has their own opinion, and will listen to others, unless of course you disagree with it.  I suggest you take your own advice, and ‘grow up’.

JR says:

12:44pm | 21/03/11

Inbreeding is a valid point, and only the ignorant would dispute that this pollutes the gene pool.

I recall reading of an incident of a young coupe in the UK that found they both had the same father, though I can’t recall if that was the father having had relationships with both of those mothers or due to donor sperm and IVF. Anyway, they did speak to the media to raise awareness of the situation, but they did not want public ridicule so chose to not reveal their identities publicly.

I would like to think the occurrence of this is low, but I imagine that just as in the UK case, people in such a situation will feel ashamed and won’t want the publicity. Others may be in this position and just don’t know.

Obviously a concern, but I wouldn’t be an advocate of this to justify a ban on IVF from donor sperm because of it. But if we just let society go to hell and women are having babies from donor sperm en masse, because it becomes the norm, then it will become a massive problem.

James1 says:

01:43pm | 22/03/11

Note that the article states that it is a father figure that is important.  This father figure could be a family friend, an uncle, or other man that is significant in your life.  I play that role for my nephew from a single parent family.

So while your biological father may have donated you some DNA, it sounds like he is not a father figure.