Mary Cheney is pregnant. Wish her well.
That's what good folks do when presented with an expectant mother. Behind the scenes they may say or think whatever they like, but publicly they wish the mother-to-be well.
Which puts right-wingers in a bit of a bind. Many of them claim that same-sex parenting selfishly deprives children of a father or a mother. But when one of your own (or at least the daughter of one of your own) is a pregnant lesbian, it's a bit awkward to bring that up.
Not that that's been stopping them. For example, Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America writes that Cheney's action "repudiates traditional values and sets an appalling example for young people at a time when father absence is the most pressing social problem facing the nation." According to Crouse, Cheney's child "will have all the material advantages it will need, but it will still encounter the emotional devastation common to children without fathers."
Aw, heck-why not just lock Cheney up for child abuse and get it over with?
Actually, I shouldn't joke about this. Accusing people of deliberately harming children-particularly those to which they are about to give birth-is pretty serious. But is the accusation cogent?
We don't know what role, if any, the father will have in Baby Cheney's life (beyond the obvious biological one). But let's assume for the sake of discussion that Mary and her partner intend to raise the child without him.
Crouse's accusation has two parts: first, Cheney harms society by promoting fatherless families, and second, she harms her own child by causing it "emotional devastation," among other problems. Let's take these in order.
No one denies that "fatherless families" are a serious social problem, if by them Crouse means the typical cases of poor unwed teenaged mothers who are abandoned by males that they probably shouldn't have been with in the first place. But one doubts that when these lotharios are pressuring their girlfriends to have sex, the girlfriends are thinking, "Hey, Mary Cheney and other famous lesbians are raising children without fathers-why can't I?" Indeed, one doubts that "thinking" comes into the picture at all.
To compare such situations with that of professional women in a 15-year partnership is ludicrous on its face. Cheney's example may encourage other "fatherless families," but these, like Cheney's, are likely to be of the carefully planned variety.
Crouse cites not a shred of evidence to suggest that planned fatherless families have the problems typical of the more common accidental ones. She can't. Insofar as such things have been researched, the evidence is squarely against her. So says the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychology, the American Psychiatric Association, and every other mainstream health organization that has commented publicly on the issue.
Which pretty much takes the wind out of the sails of her other argument, that Cheney's decision harms Cheney's child by assuring it "emotional devastation." The available research says otherwise.
None of this is to deny that fathers are important in their own unique ways or that, in general, fathers bring different (and important) things to childrearing than mothers do. But it is a huge leap from those claims to the claim that lesbian parents "deprive" their children of something.
This past year my maternal grandmother died. Grandmothers are special, as those who are fortunate enough to have them will usually tell you. And in general, they're special in somewhat different ways than grandfathers, just as grandparents are special in somewhat different ways than parents. But if a motherless person were to choose to have children, we wouldn't describe her as "depriving" them of a grandmother-even if we thought that, all else being equal, it is better for children to have them. So even granting for the sake of argument that it is "ideal" for children to have both mothers and fathers, it does not follow that it is wrong to bring them into the world otherwise.
Wish Mary Cheney well. It's the right thing to do.
6 Comments for “Mary CheneyUnfit Parent?”
posted by John on
Hard to imagine what exactly this masculine or feminine essence might be that children with same-sex parents are deprived of. Whatever it is it certainly seems small in comparison to the personality variations within each sex.
posted by Dana on
Crouse is also ignoring the facts that:
* Less than 25% of all U. S. families consist of a married, opposite-sex couple living with their own (biological or adopted) children?down from 40% in 1970.
* One third of all births are to women who are not married. Half of them are not teen mothers, but rather women over the age of 20. This number doesn?t distinguish between those cohabitating with a partner and those living alone?regardless, it shows that marriage and family are no longer the coterminous institutions they once were. (The one third also does not include women who adopt, since we do not know how many women adopt on their own.)
* For women over 30 years old, 8% birthed children on their own in 1970, but today the proportion has jumped to 12%.
(http://mombian.com/2006/09/25/the-changing-shape-of-the-american-family/)
I doubt the number of “emotionally devastated” children equals what would be predicted by these statistics, if Crouse’s opinion held true.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
What Mary Cheney (and gay people) should do to respond to critics is rather different than what’s actually being done. Rather than reply with statistics in response to the phoney math of the nosey right wing, she and her supporters should tell the right to shut the hell up and mind their own business — and warn the average parent that they’re next on the right wing’s list of people whose family lives will be up for scrutiny and government interference.
posted by Fitz on
A study that looked at the relation between divorce rates and out-of wedlock birthrates and violent crime between 1973 and 1995 found that nearly 90% of the change in violent crime rates can be accounted for by the change in percentages of out-of-wedlock births. During the years 1987 to 1993, ?Levels of out-of- wedlock births were consistently and strongly related to violent crime. Rates of male unemployment were not consistently related to rates of violent crime.
Mackey, Wade C., & Coney, Nancy S. (2000). The enigma of father presence in relationship to sons? violence and daughters? mating strategies: empiricism in search of a theory. Journal of Men?s Studies, 8: 349-373. p.352
posted by Dr. Brad Vincent on
I personally don’t care what people THINK about Mary Cheney having a baby without a father, but I am very interested in what they think the government should DO about it. Does Crouse support making one parent households illegal? Must recently divorced parents be legally obligated to get married to other spouses the day after the divorce is final lest the children be without two parents in the home? Perhaps my father should have been legally obligated to remarry the day after my mother died? If Crouse has a policy proposal to protect our children, then she should just say it. Otherwise, she should mind her own business.
posted by Fitz on
Oh – very good Doc,
How about this “policy proposal”, the goverment privelages the one arangment that gives a child a chance at his/her mother & father in an intact home?
We will call it “marriage”…
and hold it above all others…
(its the least we can do)
Given that Forty-five percent of all Hispanic births occur outside of marriage, Only the percentage of black out-of-wedlock births?68 percent?exceeds the Hispanic rate. And the Hispanic population is going to triple over the next few decades. So have a little heart and start thinking of fatherless children instead of yourself.