David Quinn v Ivana Bacik on Pat Kenny this morning

MadsL · 12-07-2012 7:42am

jank wrote: »

No I don't on the other hand you are trying to assume that men/father and women/mothers don't have discernible differences in characters and attitudes.

People have discernible differences - to assign one parenting style/label to a single gender is ridiculous. I'm a separated father and have had a joint role in raising my (now) teenager. Sometimes I have behaved in a maternal way towards her. Sometimes I have behaved in a paternal way. Single parents fulfill both roles as best they can.

Some mothers haven't a scrap of maternal instinct and behave in a paternalistic manner. My wife's mother raised her in manner that you would expect from an authoritarian father.

I think you are projecting your value systems onto the parenting 'roles', in real life it doesn't happen like that.

MadsL · 12-07-2012 7:45am

jank wrote:

I phrased it badly, what I meant is that within the next few years gay marriage will become law.

Meanwhile in these preceding years until gay marriage becomes law we will see evidence of more marriage breakups and separations.

Here are your two sentences. Could you tell me if you see a relationship between them. Are you saying the lack of gay marriage will cause more marriage breakups and separations? I'm confused by what you are trying to say.

The Corinthian · 12-07-2012 9:02am

jank wrote: »

I am not correlating that enabling gay marriage will increase single parent families.

Who knows, it might?

It comes down to whether there is any difference in the rate of marital breakup between single-sex couples and different-sex couples. It could very well be the same, in which case it'll make no difference. Or it could be higher, in which case it will increase the propensity for single-parent families. Or it could even be lower, in which case it would decrease the propensity for single-parent families.

All presuming, of course, that they are 'families'; given the additional barriers to having children (IVF, adoption and surrogacy are not cheap or easy to carry out); which would likely lead to single-sex couples being less likely to have children in the first place and thus demand that the rate of breakup to be significantly higher before it negatively effects single-parent rates.

In reality we don't know until it is legalized and we can examine the results after a few years, at which point it would be a moot point anyway.

Dave! · 12-07-2012 9:19am

jank wrote: »

I phrased it badly, what I meant is that within the next few years gay marriage will become law. Meanwhile in these preceding years until gay marriage becomes law we will see evidence of more marriage breakups and separations.

Then how does Ivana Bacik bear any responsibility for the "crumbling" of the institution of marriage, as per your post below?

jank wrote: »

You can be damm sure that the likes of Ivana will take credit for their victory yet abdicate all responsibility when it comes to the institute of marriage itself which is crumbling. If only she was honest about. The stats are shocking.

Other than in the sense that all legislators might share some responsibility for failing to act. You did mention Ivana specifically though.

jank · 12-07-2012 9:19am

MadsL wrote: »

People have discernible differences - to assign one parenting style/label to a single gender is ridiculous.
.

Why not? Is it not true?

MadsL wrote: »

I'm a separated father and have had a joint role in raising my (now) teenager. Sometimes I have behaved in a maternal way towards her. Sometimes I have behaved in a paternal way. Single parents fulfill both roles as best they can. .

The very fact that you said both indictates that there are two natural roles to parenting, that taken up by a mother and father. Yet you seem to indicate that single parenting is in no way shape of form a disadvantage for a child. A whole host of research will beg to differ.

MadsL wrote: »

Some mothers haven't a scrap of maternal instinct and behave in a paternalistic manner. My wife's mother raised her in manner that you would expect from an authoritarian father.

Yes, there will always be exceptions to the rule (and I don't want to go into your personal life) but in general mothers and fathers fufill different roles. This ain't something ground breaking but I suppose in this PC world of ours any pointed fact of a fundamental difference between two people is frowned upon for some reason.

People/humans are not asexual and I dont want to live in such a world. Long live "The Gentlemens Club" and "The Ladies Lounge"

MadsL wrote: »

I think you are projecting your value systems onto the parenting 'roles', in real life it doesn't happen like that.

What value system is this? I'm curious!

jank · 12-07-2012 9:21am

MadsL wrote: »

Here are your two sentences. Could you tell me if you see a relationship between them. Are you saying the lack of gay marriage will cause more marriage breakups and separations? I'm confused by what you are trying to say.

Read what I wrote above

jank · 12-07-2012 9:24am

The Corinthian wrote: »

Who knows, it might?

It comes down to whether there is any difference in the rate of marital breakup between single-sex couples and different-sex couples. It could very well be the same, in which case it'll make no difference. Or it could be higher, in which case it will increase the propensity for single-parent families. Or it could even be lower, in which case it would decrease the propensity for single-parent families.

All presuming, of course, that they are 'families'; given the additional barriers to having children (IVF, adoption and surrogacy are not cheap or easy to carry out); which would likely lead to single-sex couples being less likely to have children in the first place and thus demand that the rate of breakup to be significantly higher before it negatively effects single-parent rates.

In reality we don't know until it is legalized and we can examine the results after a few years, at which point it would be a moot point anyway.

Yes, fair point. Id say it at the start you will see single sex couples having a better rate of a perpetual marriage but as time goes by single-sex marriage will no longer be "different" the rate will then return to norm.

jank · 12-07-2012 9:42am

Dave! wrote: »

Then how does Ivana Bacik bear any responsibility for the "crumbling" of the institution of marriage, as per your post below?

Other than in the sense that all legislators might share some responsibility for failing to act. You did mention Ivana specifically though.

I am not blaming her per say on an individual basis for this. The only point I was making is that her attempts of social engineering will go on long after gay marriage will be made legal yet she will do nothing to try and help the institution of marriage for same or different sex couples. She is trying to equate this issue to the civil rights era of the 60's FFS.

She has always been on the airways squawking about the injustices in the world and wants to use government as a means of readdressing the balance e.g. gender quotas. Yet the affects of legislation she has campaigned has had huge effects on society. See the huge rise of broken homes and families. Its like a box ticking exercise.

Now as I said before government should not be prying into marriage but at the same time they should not be enabling single parent families. She cant have it both ways.

A) Liberal social laws where women can have a dozen kids with different fathers outside of marriage but the taxpayers should not pay for individual choices or mistakes.

A return to conservative social values which curtails sex outside of marriage but the government will help single parent familes as they are rare (usually the case of a death)

clunked · 12-07-2012 9:51am

Fenian Army wrote: »

Bacik is probably the least likable senator there is... and thats saying something. I've met her a number of times and she always come across as arrogant and smarmy.

I find myself instantly sympathetic to the other side... despite agreeing with her on lots of things (gender quotas etc).

Generally she is an asset to the "other side" in debates.

Funnily enough, she is exactly as I remember her as President of the TCD SU in the late 80s. Herself and David Quinn would make a lovely couple:).

The Corinthian · 12-07-2012 9:57am

jank wrote: »

Id say it at the start you will see single sex couples having a better rate of a perpetual marriage but as time goes by single-sex marriage will no longer be "different" the rate will then return to norm.

Completely speculative, TBH.

My own guess is that one of the principle things that keeps marriages intact is (religious) conservative ideology. As homosexuals will, on average, tend twoards more (secular) liberalism, then this effect will be reduced and marital breakup accordingly will be slightly higher.

Of course, on the flip side, even if freely able to adopt, employ surrogates or IVF, etc, they will be far less likely to have children anyway (not everyone has Ricky Martin's money) and thus this will mean that a much smaller fraction of same-sex marital breakups will result in single-parent families than occurs in different-sex couples.

As such I would expect that this would result (all other factors remaining unchanged) in an overall increase in the rate of marital breakups but, ironically, an even larger decrease in the rate of marital breakups resulting in single-parent families.

Not that this matters, because I suspect that the prevalence of single-parent families will continue to increase unabated, but it will have absolutely nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

All of which is also completely speculative

Corkfeen · 12-07-2012 10:07am

jank wrote: »

Then you would be saying that the parenting roles of the mother and father are the exact same, which we all know its not. I did mention the fact that other situations may arise which would lead to very good upbringings for children which you conveniently ignored. I am a realist!

The studies don't actually seem to agree with you on that one. There's a few topics in the past that have included such studies but one example is this one.

We found that sexual orientation of the adoptive parents was not a significant predictor of emotional problems," Paige Averett, an assistant professor of social work at East Carolina University, said in a statement.

"We did find, however, that age and pre-adoptive sexual abuse were," she added.

Averett, Blace Nalavany, also of East Carolina University, and Scott Ryan, dean of the University of Texas School of Social Work, questioned nearly 1,400 couples in the United States, including 155 gay and lesbian parents.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/25/us-adoption-children-idUSTRE58O3MK20090925

This one has plenty of references that you can check out.
http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx

So studies do in fact show that the orientation of the couple won't impact upon the development of the child so you are overrating the mother/father roles. There's plenty more studies that support this. If a same sex couple offers the best home for adoption, there should not be an issue.

jank wrote: »

Sadly i agree.

Gay marriage or whatever you call it will be passed within a few years yet between now and then the prevalence of single parent families will no doubt increase. Nobody it seems gives a crap about it and as I mentioned in another post the societal affects that this causes is massive especially to the under privileged. Marriage is now longer seen as an act one takes which is for life.

You can be damm sure that the likes of Ivana will take credit for their victory yet abdicate all responsibility when it comes to the institute of marriage itself which is crumbling. If only she was honest about. The stats are shocking.

This actually raises an interesting point, David Quinn opened the discussion with how only 50 thousand (figure might be off) married couples were separated at some point prior to the implementation of divorce (don't have headphones to check the year). But this doesn't mean that all other married couples were in any way better off. Separation simply wasn't an option for many women, it wasn't financially viable (plus it wouldn't have been socially acceptable amongst many people) at the time. The role of marriage isn't crumbling, it's simply a matter of some marriages not being worth it in the long run. Previous generations had them and remained together but that doesn't mean that they should have. I also think the five year separation rule for divorce is rather excessive. :pac:

Einhard · 12-07-2012 10:54am

Quick quesion Jank, because I'm slightly confused: are you for or against gay marriage?

And if against, why so?

iptba · 12-07-2012 1:54pm

Corkfeen wrote: »

This actually raises an interesting point, David Quinn opened the discussion with how only 50 thousand (figure might be off) married couples were separated at some point prior to the implementation of divorce (don't have headphones to check the year). But this doesn't mean that all other married couples were in any way better off. Separation simply wasn't an option for many women, it wasn't financially viable (plus it wouldn't have been socially acceptable amongst many people) at the time. The role of marriage isn't crumbling, it's simply a matter of some marriages not being worth it in the long run. Previous generations had them and remained together but that doesn't mean that they should have. I also think the five year separation rule for divorce is rather excessive. :pac:

It may be the case that nothing much has changed in Ireland at the moment. It could certainly get to the stage where people hop in and out of marriage a bit too quickly than is ideal for families e.g. divorce rates in the U.S.

Kinski · 12-07-2012 2:26pm

Why is all this "what about the children?" stuff relevant? A heterosexual couple consisting of people in their 50s would be incapable of producing children, and would be unlikely to be considered suitable candidates for adoption. Yet they would be free to marry, and the State would consider that marriage equal with one between two 30yr olds, granting the couple exactly the same rights. Leaving aside all questions of what sort of environment is "best" for raising children, why shouldn't a gay couple enjoy the same rights as those 50-somethings?

jank · 12-07-2012 3:33pm

Einhard wrote: »

Quick quesion Jank, because I'm slightly confused: are you for or against gay marriage?

And if against, why so?

As I already said I believe government should be not be involving itself in who can and cannot marry. I hope that is clear.

Kinski · 12-07-2012 4:52pm

jank wrote: »

As I already said I believe government should be not be involving itself in who can and cannot marry. I hope that is clear.

Then there should be no issue. Don't feel the need for legal recognition of your marriage? Fine - hold an informal ceremony, invite your friends and family, make your vows, tell everyone you're husband and wife. End of.

But there still exists a formal, legally-recognised institution called "marriage." Heterosexual couples have the right to choose it, homosexual couples don't. Is that ok?

hatrickpatrick · 12-07-2012 5:30pm

Bacik is a disgrace to society. Even many women I know are appalled by her misandrist politics sometimes.

Macha · 12-07-2012 7:32pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Bacik is a disgrace to society. Even many women I know are appalled by her misandrist politics sometimes.

ooh, imagine a women being against misandry.

MadsL · 13-07-2012 2:13am

jank wrote: »

The very fact that you said both indictates that there are two natural roles to parenting, that taken up by a mother and father.

The fact that you cannot conceive of a paternal nature outside of of male gender and a maternal nature outside of female gender is troublesome. What do you make of penguins 'natural roles'?

Piste · 14-07-2012 5:55pm

Funnily enough I heard/see a lot of criticism of Bacik, but it's always vague statements about how "annoying" she is, or she speaks "nonsense". Rarely do I see specific examples of things she says that people have a problem with. it seems like the major issue people have is not with what she says, but how she says it.

The Corinthian · 14-07-2012 6:16pm

Piste wrote: »

Funnily enough I heard/see a lot of criticism of Bacik, but it's always vague statements about how "annoying" she is, or she speaks "nonsense". Rarely do I see specific examples of things she says that people have a problem with. it seems like the major issue people have is not with what she says, but how she says it.

I certainly do believe that many do dislike her simply because of how she comes across rather than her views or actions.

However, you would not have to search for long here to find specific examples of where people find her views obnoxious, in particular where it comes to gender politics; quotas (as long as they're female quotas, of course), preferential treatment of female criminals, support for the cohabitation 'opt-out' policy, hostility to father's rights organizations, and so on.

Additionally, that her electoral career has seen her repeatedly parachuted into constituencies that she clearly has no connection to (or interest in), just so she can get into the Dail, has undoubtedly and understandably rubbed people up the wrong way.

iptba · 14-07-2012 7:19pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I certainly do believe that many do dislike her simply because of how she comes across rather than her views or actions.

However, you would not have to search for long here to find specific examples of where people find her views obnoxious, in particular where it comes to gender politics; quotas (as long as they're female quotas, of course), preferential treatment of female criminals, support for the cohabitation 'opt-out' policy, hostility to father's rights organizations, and so on.

Additionally, that her electoral career has seen her repeatedly parachuted into constituencies that she clearly has no connection to (or interest in), just so she can get into the Dail, has undoubtedly and understandably rubbed people up the wrong way.

I would dislike her for the reasons mentioned in paragraph 2. And associated matters.

Another group would dislike like her for her pro-choice campaigning which has been a feature of her work since she was a college student (TCD SU vs SPUC, etc.).

Blowfish · 14-07-2012 7:24pm

Piste wrote: »

Funnily enough I heard/see a lot of criticism of Bacik, but it's always vague statements about how "annoying" she is, or she speaks "nonsense". Rarely do I see specific examples of things she says that people have a problem with. it seems like the major issue people have is not with what she says, but how she says it.

Further to the above, here's Bacik's calling for lighter sentences for women who commit the same crimes as men.

Piste · 14-07-2012 9:37pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I certainly do believe that many do dislike her simply because of how she comes across rather than her views or actions.

However, you would not have to search for long here to find specific examples of where people find her views obnoxious, in particular where it comes to gender politics; quotas (as long as they're female quotas, of course), preferential treatment of female criminals, support for the cohabitation 'opt-out' policy, hostility to father's rights organizations, and so on.

Additionally, that her electoral career has seen her repeatedly parachuted into constituencies that she clearly has no connection to (or interest in), just so she can get into the Dail, has undoubtedly and understandably rubbed people up the wrong way.

Blowfish wrote: »

Further to the above, here's Bacik's calling for lighter sentences for women who commit the same crimes as men.

Thanks to you both

It's nice to see genuine criticism rather than just "rah rah feminazi rah rah".

Sponge Bob · 15-07-2012 2:54pm

Blowfish wrote: »

Further to the above, here's Bacik's calling for lighter sentences for women who commit the same crimes as men.

Lets see if Bacik calls on society to 'keep the child with its mother' in this particular case so.

There is a subculture of dysfunctional female dominated households out there who 'KNOW' they 'cannot be sentenced to prison' and they act accordingly. They do get sent in but only occasionally.

I cannot recall the last time a woman was jailed for violence short of murder/manslaughter in Galway to be honest, and yet there are some exceedingly violent and dysfunctional women on the streets.

Men cannot and should not carry on like that ...as they will go to prison for it. Those who do carry on like that are in and out of prison which is a separate issue of course.

Another issue is where people ( not just women) are committed over fines rather than have the fines dealt with by attachment of income.

The Corinthian · 15-07-2012 3:10pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Lets see if Bacik calls on society to 'keep the child with its mother' in this particular case so.

Bacik may be a misandrist, but she's not an idiot. My guess is she would avoid making any comment on this particular case.

oldrnwisr · 16-07-2012 6:44pm

jank wrote: »

MadsL wrote: »

People have discernible differences - to assign one parenting style/label to a single gender is ridiculous.

Why not? Is it not true?

As it happens, no, it isn't true.

The established research has shown that there is no measurable difference between married heterosexual and married homosexual couples with regard to the outcomes of their children. There is no optimum or ideal environment and no "need" for both a father and mother as David Quinn likes to keep bleating on about.

The established body of research shows that the characteristics of parents which impact positively (or negatively as the case maybe) on their children's outcomes are not gender dependent.

There is an excellent meta-analysis of the current research by Michael Lamb called The Role of the Father in Child Development.

In this book he concludes:

First, fathers and mothers influence their children in similar rather than dissimilar ways.

Stated differently, students of socialization have consistently found that parental warmth, nurturance and closeness are associated with positive child outcomes regardless of whether the parent involved is a mother or father.

Secondly, as research has unfolded, psychologists have been forced to conclude that the characteristics of individual fathers - such as their masculinity, intellect, and even their warmth - are much less important, formatively speaking, than are the characteristics of the relationships they have established with their children.

Marital harmony is a consistent correlate of child adjustment, whereas marital conflict is a consistent and reliable correlate of child maladjustment.

Even studies published since this book have continued to add weight to this conclusion.

However, once again in these debates, I don't see the relevance of introducing parenting in a debate on marriage. Let's suppose that a homosexual couple apply for marriage having sworn affidavits that they have no intention of having biological or adoptive children. What then? And even if all the research were wrong and there were marked advantages for heterosexual married couples, so what? We don't make rights available based on what's optimal (or at least we shouldn't).

iptba · 18-07-2012 8:08pm

I just read on p.ie that Senator Ivana Bacik will be one of the Labour Party's representatives on the Constitutional Convention.

David Quinn v Ivana Bacik on Pat Kenny this morning

Comments