• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Mothers and fathers contribute to the parenting task in unique ways

Here is the problem. You are assuming something is different between men and women beyond the physical, but you aren't defining it. This makes it seem more like an assumption than a fact. Unless you can actually define the "something" that is different, that is unique to each gender, then you are simply making an unsubstantiated assumption.

That's because science is only just starting to tap into that area. Liblady pointed out that the brains are physically different between men and women. Who knows what that could mean in the way men and women process and even express themselves? Besides, what better way to answer an unsubstantiated assumption (that the idea is religious based) than with an unsubstantiated assumption?

Speaking of which, you completely ignored the last part of my previous post. It challenges the very premise of your original post. So did you simply miss it or are you ignoring it for a reason?


What is the "more" that the child gets? What particular benefit is the child getting that a child who has maybe two parents of the same sex is not getting?

Because we couldn't measure the effects of uranium in 1000 AD doesn't mean that exposure to the element didn't result in radiation poisoning. Here's the better question. What particular benefit is the child getting that a child who has maybe 3 or 4 or more parents is not getting? Why is two, regardless of the gender, the needed number? And for the purpose of the argument just presented, while I concede that a child must have only two biological parents, your argument alone notes that a parent need not be blood related to be a parent.
 
It's all bull****. Plenty of people grow up with only one parent and they turn out fine. I never learned anything from my dad that I didn't learn from my mom and vice versa. Social conservatives need to learn to mind their own ****ing business for once.
 
It's all bull****. Plenty of people grow up with only one parent and they turn out fine. I never learned anything from my dad that I didn't learn from my mom and vice versa. Social conservatives need to learn to mind their own ****ing business for once.

My parents were completely different in their parenting approach - I don't believe it was *gender* related - I believe it was personal values and individual differences. Hence: have two females or two males isn't going to make as much of a difference as having one who's open and outgoing and one who's not . .. or one who's a neat freak and one who's not. . . and so forth.

If both parents hold the same views and values then their approach to parenting is probably going ot be quite similar.

OR - like my husband and I - we find consensus on almost everything. We want to approach all our situations from very different angles but find it most ideal to figure out a middle ground - so in the end we *look* like we approach things the same.
 
we process things differently. men want to fix things, women want to talk. women tend to be more verbal. of course not every man or woman fits the stereotypes, but overall i think most do. women show their emotions, i think that's harder for men. what's wrong with acknowledging our differences?

What's wrong? Simple, it doesn't fit with CT's goal here, and that is to somehow prove that there are no dfferences between men and women.. Something I suspect, that would make the last 3000 years of literature on the subject null and void... :)

CT read Men are from Mars and Women are form Venus. That's a good start! Does it mean that all women and men are this way? Nope, but I would say that more often than not, it bears the truth fruit consistently.. :)


Tim-
 
Exactly my thoughts Hicup, well said.

This is a question of function, and the two genders work in conjunction each a part of the function; each fulfilling different requirements.
 
Then why is there no real difference between kids raised by gay parents and kids raised by straight parents? You would think, if this were true, that kids raised by gay parents would be unbalanced. They aren't. They're identical to kids raised by straight parents.
 
Then why is there no real difference between kids raised by gay parents and kids raised by straight parents? You would think, if this were true, that kids raised by gay parents would be unbalanced. They aren't. They're identical to kids raised by straight parents.

They are hardly identical. By no means am I saying they are unbalanced either. I counter again with why are we only looking at two parents, gay or other wise? We aren't we considering children raised in poly families where there are multiple parents available to them?

In the end the statement is absolutely true. Mothers and Fathers contribute to child raising in unique ways. Everyone is unique and therefor whoever is raising the child will be contributing in unique ways. There is no getting around this absolute truth and thus CT is proven wrong that the belief is religious in nature. Even going upon the assumed premise of opposite gendered parents vice same gendered parents are better in child raising ( which is not what he said but probably what he was going for) he has still to provide any proof that it is a religious belief instead of a age old social belief.
 
Genders play a huge role. Brains of women are different then brains of men, simply because of the concentration of the hormone testosterone. This concentration difference starts different processes which ultimately construct a different brain. With that said, different brains will have different parenting styles. Men tend to be more dominant, and women and men respond differently to dominance.

It is known that men communicate through dominance. If you were to go into a room filled with men, it is basically a dance between who can flex the most testosterone. The difference being, that men respond differently as to what dominance truly is. Some men, it is physical dominance. Others, it is intellectual, while others is sexual, and others correlate dominance to how big their wallet is. So it is possible as well as highly probable, that every man in that conversation would part thinking they are the most dominant, even though there could only be one. I know, funny, and very typical of men.

Women communicate much differently. They are more open about what and how they feel to one another. So in essence, I feel that mothers serve as the prime teacher of our limbic systems. When we as children have a feeling that we can not put words on, we can find it out through talking or observing our mothers. Fathers serve a more primitive role, and that of survival. Fathers provide children with the knowledge and strategies in surviving this world. Women would approach the problem by working with others, while men tend to want to do it themselves.

Both viewpoints provide purpose, and one viewpoint will make more sense depending on the context. It is known the most influential and most important relationship of a human's life is the very first relationship with their parents. Through this relationship, the human brain will construct the nature of human relationships, and therefore construct their perception of the world. It is known that babies that experience the trauma of seperating from their biological parents and are forced into foster homes, are going to experience change in their brain structure just from that one event. That pain will be hard wired in their brains, and might even contribute to an over excited fight or flight response or even a disassociative response. This will in turn increase their subseptibility to either opiates or stimulants in their life.

Through the book of The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog, you will learn so much about the brain. I advise everyone to read it. It explains why and how people either become sociopaths or successful contributors to society. It has everything to do with genetic predispositions and the environment that this brain was raised in. The earlier the trauma, the more of an impact the trauma induces. Just as we as humans in our infancy can sponge knowledge, a trauma can have the same effect if experienced in the early years of life. For example, from this book I can deduce that living the life I was living, I was exposed to a small but constant fear. The fear of not knowing when my next plate of food was going to be, the trauma of having to eat once a day to ensure food for my family, made my fight-flight system stimulated more than the average person. This means it was sensitized, which means less of a stimulation will set the response off. This excited system explains my gravitation to stimulants, more particularly to THC. When anxiety of my life became unmanageable, I would excite my fight-flight response system to deal with the anxiety.

You see how much of a difference one book can do? Our children (in the community that I grew up in) are reading about the Hannarabi Code, as well as Greek Mythology. When there are books out there that can not only change but define your perception are out there, and you are instead reading about Zeus, to me is such a waste.
 
They are hardly identical. By no means am I saying they are unbalanced either. I counter again with why are we only looking at two parents, gay or other wise? We aren't we considering children raised in poly families where there are multiple parents available to them?

In the end the statement is absolutely true. Mothers and Fathers contribute to child raising in unique ways. Everyone is unique and therefor whoever is raising the child will be contributing in unique ways. There is no getting around this absolute truth and thus CT is proven wrong that the belief is religious in nature. Even going upon the assumed premise of opposite gendered parents vice same gendered parents are better in child raising ( which is not what he said but probably what he was going for) he has still to provide any proof that it is a religious belief instead of a age old social belief.

CC has a great post on this. There is no measurable difference between the adjustment of a child raised by gay parents, and one raised by straight parents.

I suspect the reason we haven't looked at poly families is simply a lack of social pressure to do so, and possibly a lack of available subjects (depending on how you're defining a poly family). They probably turn out fine too, I'd guess.

No, it isn't true. There is no evidence that it's true. And there's lots of evidence that it isn't. You having not bothered to look into it doesn't count as evidence.

PEOPLE contribute in unique ways. It has little to do with what's between their legs.

Look at the stereotype of fathers today vs. 50 years ago. 50 years ago, dad was the one to be afraid of - the one who dealt punishment. Today, dads are portrayed as being bumbling and clueless and always handing things off to the mother when someone needs to be "the bad guy." The exact opposite of what it was 50 years ago.

This stereotype changes with the times. And all available evidence shows that the gender make-up of the parents has no appreciable affect on how the kids turn out. It's just a social construct.
 
sookster - While it's true men and women do have different brains in general, there's a few things you're missing.

1. This exists on a continuum. Which means that any given woman and any given man can fall anywhere along that continuum, it's just that more men tend to be on the male side and vise versa. It also means that a man being on the EXTREME male side is relatively rare - just as rare as a man being on the feminine side (and vise versa).

2. You have a short-sighted view of dominance. Dominance covers more than muscles, where obviously men come out on top in most cases. Women can be just as dominant, but they have to go about it in a different way since they will probably lose if they attack it from a brawn perspective.

Women exert dominance psychologically. They can be every bit as dominant as men - they just don't tend to hit people to make their point. Having a better empathetic ability is imperative when you have no physical chance of winning a fight. In the psychological field, female brains are the clear winners.

This is, of course, assuming a given woman has a stereotypical female brain. Many don't. And some men do.

But the larger point of this is that the tendencies of men and women are actually pretty much the same. They just come at the exact same point with different solutions. But the drive and the purpose is the same. There's nothing fundamentally different about their tendencies as humans.
 
So basically you know more than people who have PhD's in communication. The gender communication theory is widely accepted, because not only is there observational data to support it, there is also an evolutionary purpose to it.

I'm not saying that every male and every female have the same brains. Hardly the case. What I am saying is a brain of a female will be substantially different than a males brain, thus resulting in different behaviors.

Men communicate in dominance, period. If you go to a party, it's a huge flaunt of who can drink the most, or who can score with the hottest girl. If it is a sport, it is who has the most skills, and on the road, it is whoever has the fastest car.

Have your views if you wish. But there is much more data to support my view than yours.
 
No, it isn't true. There is no evidence that it's true. And there's lots of evidence that it isn't. You having not bothered to look into it doesn't count as evidence.

PEOPLE contribute in unique ways. It has little to do with what's between their legs.

Unless you are saying that mothers and fathers are not people, then it is very much true. That was my secondary point. My first point is that there is no evidence that the thought of a mother and a father being the best pair to raise a child is a religious one or at least not solely.
 
So basically you know more than people who have PhD's in communication. The gender communication theory is widely accepted, because not only is there observational data to support it, there is also an evolutionary purpose to it.

I'm not saying that every male and every female have the same brains. Hardly the case. What I am saying is a brain of a female will be substantially different than a males brain, thus resulting in different behaviors.

Men communicate in dominance, period. If you go to a party, it's a huge flaunt of who can drink the most, or who can score with the hottest girl. If it is a sport, it is who has the most skills, and on the road, it is whoever has the fastest car.

Have your views if you wish. But there is much more data to support my view than yours.

As much as I am agreement with your position, let's see some data to back it up. Besides I would like to know where to go to find this data.

Being in the BDSM community, I am also going to have to ask you to back up the men talk dominance thing more. Given the sheer number of male subs (well subs period) I am starting to wonder if such is the case anymore.
 
This theory is shared in an oral communications class at the community college level.

The data is in front of your eyes. When you are going about your day to day activities, observe human interaction with this model in mind. That's all you need.
 
Well, you obviously didn't read what I actually wrote. Try again when you have.
 
The problem is that I don't see those stereotypes reflected in reality often enough to even call them "generally" true. They're the "ideal" social construct that we're taught. But in reality, I don't see either men or women owning either of those roles distinctly.

Not only is that COMPLETELY false in my own life, but it's mostly false in the life of almost everyone I can think of. In nearly ever case of people I know well enough to know their parents or have a good understanding of what they were like, those qualities are mixed and matched between the parents.

It simply isn't true. It's certainly a nice, comfortable black-and-white narrative, but it's not true.

Compare which gender participates more in the stock market.
The generality starts to present itself, in reality.
 
Compare which gender participates more in the stock market.
The generality starts to present itself, in reality.

LOL - oh yeah, that delivered a point . . . Oh wait, no it didn't.

What does raising children have to do with gambling on businesses?
 
Back
Top Bottom