This morning's episode was an object lesson in how to disagree vociferously, without hurling slurs at each other, having a public fallout and resorting to a twitter pile on. The fact that I felt twinges of discomfort at certain points, was completely to do with my erstwhile family history and not with your robust defence of your respective positions.
I am a lesbian mother, although our eldest daughter is 53 and the youngest 32, so outside the levels of acceptance that we have now (or did before the gender borg arrived) The first was begat by the traditional method, although, by the time she was 2, I had fled the scene of my brief exploration of heterosexuality and was living with a woman, two hundred miles south of my birthplace. In that instance, in the 70s, many lesbians were losing their children because of their 'unnatural relationships'. I never tried to stop her father from seeing her, even though I didn't want to, but he decided, 'a clean break is best.' Then it was up to me to ameliorate any fallout from his absence, in as age appropriate a way as I could. She was mildly curious about him, as a teenager. I told her that I would give her any information that I had, but she lost interest.
Our second was achieved via sperm donor, who wasn't interested in being a 'father', but was happy to remain in contact, should she, at anytime want to meet, or know anything about him. We talked openly about him and she met him a few times when she was a small child, but his life took another direction and we're no longer in contact. Both girls were raised with contact with grandfathers, uncles, male friends, gay and straight, and crucially, other children of same sex families. Despite our best efforts, because we all want whats best for our children, right? Both daughters are happily married to lovely men and our attempted indoctrination was an abject failure!
The story about the lesbian mothers who kept this man's father out of his life, perturbed me. How did they keep him out? Did he not have access to legally arranged visitation? Did he fight to retain contact with his son? There isn't a person alive that could've kept me from my children, short of locking me up!
This was the aspect of this story that was missing for me. Did he ask his father why he'd not been present in his life?
Finally, the academic article section was a hoot! Seven Asexuals, who may, or may not be having sex!! Hilarious.
Great episode, as usual. I'm much more inclined towards the deficit model of men, as Kathleen put it, but I appreciate that what a lot of us feminists have been doing for decades isn't working very well too reduce male violence or change society.
I think Kathleen puts up a bit of a strawman, though, when she says 'My 18 year old son isn't benefiting from rape.' Accepting that he isn't, that's not the point; it's like he's won the lottery but just isn't collecting his winnings. If he wanted to, he could coerce a woman into sex tomorrow and get away with it. If he wanted to discredit a woman, he could call her a liar and a slut. If he and his friends wanted to scare a woman for a bit of fun on a night out, he could. It isn't that all men constantly benefit from all aspects of patriarchy, but that the resource is there to tap into any time they choose. I couldn't benefit from the rape system in any way, because I'm a woman. That's how I understand 'all men benefit from patriarchy', because all men can, though not all men do.
I love the podcast and it makes my Fridays. It was a good debate between Julie and Kathleen but I think a few tricks were missed here. The first was that Robert Oscar Lopez’s account of his upbringing by lesbian parents was published by Christian Concern, a very conservative evangelical outfit which has been involved in various controversial legal cases and publishes articles suggesting that lesbians and gay men are unhealthy and disordered. It publishes pieces advocating for conversion therapy for same-sex attracted people, called ‘testimonies of transformation’. If we take Robert’s article at face value, as I think we must, we can agree that he’s had a difficult upbringing. Not all lesbian mothers are great parents. Who’d have guessed it? Robert’s story is taken from a book entitled Jepthah’s Children. I haven’t read it and don’t intend to, but its subtitle is ‘The innocent casualties of same-sex parenting’ so I think we can all work out what its argument is.
My other quibble is that the podcast didn’t make anything of the link between that story and the previous discussion about gay clergy marrying and same-sex blessings in Church of England churches. Christian Concern illustrates perfectly that it’s not only African church leaders who have extremely conservative views about sexuality. It’s not only woke progressives (in the Church of England and other churches, including the Catholic Church) who argue that there are theological arguments for recognising same-sex relationships. Now, I agree with Julie that there are good reasons for opposing marriage generally, but as Kathleen suggested there are also reasons why lesbian and gay Christians want their relationships to be recognised by communities that are important to them. Finally, I don’t think Jayne Ozanne is trans. She is certainly supportive of trans people but as far as I can tell she’s a ‘biological’ (real) woman who went through a lot, including conversion therapy, before coming out as a lesbian. Sorry this is so long!
You made me google Jayne Ozanne and while the pictures certainly scream "trans" right away I also watched a few seconds of a video to catch the voice just to make sure. I think you're wrong there.
I listened to some different clips and the voice sounds quite different between them and not implausibly female so I might have been too quick to jump to conclusions there! Though being such an avid "trans ally"and appearing rather ambiguous still makes me a bit suspicious.
Those who want same sex marriages or partnerships to be sanctified by their Churches do have a choice to stay and be celibate or to simply disregard the Church's ruling on these matters. I know Catholics who love parts of the Church and feel they can disregard the ideas and dictates around sexuality, or other ideological matters, and live with clear consciences the way they wish. Or they go somewhere else. The Catholic and Anglican churches provide communities and access to deep spirituality which goes beyond patriarchal Christian dogma. We always have choices, although it might take time and experience to see this.
I felt compassion for the somewhat embittered son of two lesbian women. He sounded as though he could be debriefing in a lived experience support group of some kind. I did read the article. Is he going through an especially personal rite of passage that will eventually pass with time, talking and insight? In my personal and working life I've heard many painful stories and seen people pass through them, let go and create different realities for themselves. I've had a couple of those myself!
The risk Is that this man's publicly expressed pain and bitterness could be used as evidence to make life difficult for lesbians who have children, some of whom may be boys. Don't we have enough 'lesbian' focused prejudices already? I think there are probably many stories of well-adjusted and interesting sons of lesbian couples, however. I know one. :)
Re all the different types of sexual expression and the resulting discussions, I've given up, but not without acknowledging the absurdity of it, to me at least. It seems like confetti sexuality. The LGBTQI + soup is bad enough, and I dislike it muchly. I believe we are sexual human beings who may express our sexuality in different ways at different times in our lives.
I enjoy the discussion and the disagreements. The two of you always make me think, and often laugh. It is generous of you to share your ideas, beliefs and differences with us so publicly.
Thank you as always! On a separate note, Kathleen’s UnHerd article on Rory Stewart hit the mark exactly. Stewart promotes unquestioning adherence to his worldview by all us poor ignoramuses, while he and the other high priests of knowledge guard the gates to prevent—God protect us all from it—thinking. The fact that he is still scaling the peaks of academia while Kathleen is out here with the rest of us dummies just shows how far our formerly great academic institutions have lost their way.
This was a brilliant episode. I think Kathleen is totally right - it is important that we lesbians discuss the ethics of our family structures and our children’s access to their fathers. I don’t have kids yet, but my hope is that I can ask a close male friend to donate the genetic material; a man who would be willing to be the father of their child and be involved in their life, even if not their legal guardian. Years ago I joined a Facebook group for children of sperm donors (and parents considering sperm donation), and I saw that deliberately withholding a (safe and loving) father from a child is very harmful.
I think we lesbians have to put the CHILD first.
We ask the same of gay men, whom we want to reconsider surrogacy.
I agree and was pleased to hear Kathleen’s thoughts on this. I have a lesbian niece who has three children conceived with donated sperm. The biological father of the oldest child (a boy) is heavily involved in his life, taking him to weekly activities and sport and to school one morning a week. They have a good relationship and his involvement makes my niece’s life a bit easier, since she is now separated from her lesbian partner so is single mum. She has 3 year old twins as well (a boy and a girl). Their biological father is less involved, but he does come to their birthday parties and has occasional visits. That seems to suit all concerned. I think my niece saw it as important that her children knew who their father was and could have contact. I think she’s doing a great job.
The fundamental point imo is that all children have a right to know who their parents are, and whenever possible they should be able to spend time with them, so long as the parent is not abusive in anyway. Whether gay, straight, male or female, the important thing is that the child’s interests should come first.
Best podcast yet 😉 Really enjoyed your debate and the way you each defended your corner. I’m with Julie on this. Want to support her statement that many divorces are the end result of abuse, mine included.
Absolutely get it that men have got to step up and stop letting mates away with sexist, misogynistic and abusive comments towards women. It is endemic in our society.
And the article about the seven Irish asexuals was a hoot.
As a long-time listener and fan, I was disappointed by Kathleen Stock’s ‘not-my-Nigel-ing’ around the realities of male violence. Defending #NotAllMen? Men don’t need our defending. Women and lesbians do.
I remain a fan of Kathleen and the Pod, but I disagree with the way she characterized both male violence and the feminist response to it.
The point of feminist analysis is to look at the structural realities of women’s lives. It’s inaccurate to equate feminism with rank partisanship, and it’s derailment to focus on individual exceptions. It is not about any particular tree; it’s about what’s happening to the entire forest.
Male violence and the threat of male violence is ubiquitous and sustains a culture of female submissiveness, care-taking, and acquiescence which benefits men as a class, not just as individuals.
All men, not just offenders, benefit from norms that perpetuate male coercion and female submission in dating relationships, sex, and marriage. All men, not just overt misogynists, benefit when women and girls say “yes” (professionally, romantically, or otherwise) because they fear the consequences of saying “no.” All boys and men benefit from girls and women competing less fiercely, taking up less space, and demanding less compensation.
The boys/men you know are no exception. Even “nice” boys and “good” men perpetuate coercive behavior toward women and girls, regardless of what their mothers taught them.
Male social development hinges primarily on the approval and status granted them by other males. Male role models remain the most persuasive force in stopping male violence—whether intimate partner abuse or gang violence.
Finally, it’s not so-called feminist extremism that keeps men from owning and changing male violence. It’s men being afraid or unwilling to relinquish the systemic benefits they accrue by keeping women and girls on unequal footing.
Male dominance and violence won’t change if we continue to be naïve about its contours or offer endless “exceptions” and defenses. #NotAllMen is a red herring. #YesAllWomen!
Great episode, thanks for disagreeing so well. I was a bit alarmed at first but stuck with you and realised how important it can be for some of us to witness this way of arguing, and remaining friends. Thanks both xx
About children raised by lesbians - much already said, but I'd like to add two points.
One, children are often raised by women (birth mothers and not; by choice or not) in many different situations, cultures, times. I'm not saying it's always wonderful, but perhaps the whole 'absent father as a problem' is particular to those who live in cultures/times where the social norm is that perfect parenting involves at least one woman and one man. So of course, if your upbringing doesn't mirror that model, you might well feel you've missed out. It's the not fitting in with social norms that's the problem? Or, that that's the thing to blame your troubles on? But so many children are raised in so many different types of families/ other set-ups, and there are lots of other factors that are difficult/ distressing/ damaging for children, it's hard to know which factor has any influence, never mind the most influence. All the other external potential influences are there for children/ young ppl, whether they have two-parents or a single parent or a whole village, and whether they're lesbian-raised or not. Lots of ppl grow up with issues and we nearly all blame our parents, present or absent!
Two, no-one's mentioned Susan Golombok's long-study research on this very subject - the well-being and development of children raised by lesbian parents, compared with female single parents, and hetero two-parents. Here's some links:
Maccallum and Golombok (2004) Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: a follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers at early adolescence - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15482501/
Golombok and Badger (2010) Children raised in mother-headed families from infancy: a follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers, at early adulthood - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19840989/
Last point - is there as much concern about children being raised without mothers/ women as parents? (e.g. gay male parents, single dads ...)
To put this succinctly perhaps a lesbian project created in order to discuss issues affecting lesbians ought not start a discussion of lesbian parenting based on an article published by an anti-lesbian religious group whose agenda includes a broad faith based attack on everything pertaining to homosexuality and homosexuals. Do you believe that lesbians (and gay men) should be able to have and parent children? If so then what is the acceptable method that would meet your standards for creating such a family? Only those women who come out after they've had kids with their male partner? Via IVF but only if the donor has a legal right to be in the child's life? Never surrogacy because though women have enough agency to choose to terminate a pregnancy the same woman lacks sufficient agency to carry one to term? The fact is lesbians have been having and parenting kids for decades without or with a father in the picture. And as of today there isn't any evidence, other than religious anti-gay propaganda, that there are generations of fatherless kids from lesbian households suffering or falling to thrive. That is just ridiculous. There are a zillion reasons a child may not have a dad in his or her life and Christian Concerns push to find a causal link between lesbian parents and adult dysfunction is an old bigoted trope. That neither of you spent much time pushing back against this is very disappointing.
On the upside, thanks for the mention of Paula Ettelbrick. She was a real hero and mentor to a generation of lesbian lawyers.
As a lesbian pastor and theologian, I think having someone who is both Christian and lesbian would have helped your conversation about the church's blessing of same-sex couples. Love the podcast overall, but the flattening view of religion and the experience of gay couples within various traditions was a bit offensive.
To Julie's point, there are pastors who won't officiate civil weddings in the U.S. because they don't feel it's the government's business who marries whom; they'll simply shepherd those getting married through the vows they make to each other--because ultimately it's a commitment being made between two people. If the couple, then, wants to go to the courthouse and make it "government official" they can do so. In those situations the religious leader is there to simply bear witness to the vows and provide a ritual framework.
This was, for me, the most fascinating conversation you’ve had so far. On a personal note, Julie’s mention of Paula Ettelbrick brought forward a flood of memories. In particular I remember how awed I was on meeting her to explore working for her at Lambda. As it happened, life took me in a different direction, but I am so glad to now have as a memento of those times the quote from her that “Marriage is a great institution, if you like living in institutions.” (In the interest of full disclosure, I and mine are now married, but we both think the institution is ridiculous. We finally succumbed as it is at present, in the US, the only way to cobble together the bundle of legal rights we need for a host of reasons.)
I am curious, with regard to the discussion of the article discussed by the aggrieved son of lesbian parents, what each of Kathleen and Julie think might be the ideal environment in which to raise children. My thought is that the nuclear family is not it, and perhaps something more on the order of an extended community of committed friends, whether biologically connected or not, might be the way to go.
Last thing: you know, I do think all, male and female alike, who share our concerns about the rights and boundaries of women and girls, have an obligation to speak up in whatever way they can. Male allies in this are very important and too few in number. So I would say that raising a male child reasonably should include encouraging him to speak up when needed.
This morning's episode was an object lesson in how to disagree vociferously, without hurling slurs at each other, having a public fallout and resorting to a twitter pile on. The fact that I felt twinges of discomfort at certain points, was completely to do with my erstwhile family history and not with your robust defence of your respective positions.
I am a lesbian mother, although our eldest daughter is 53 and the youngest 32, so outside the levels of acceptance that we have now (or did before the gender borg arrived) The first was begat by the traditional method, although, by the time she was 2, I had fled the scene of my brief exploration of heterosexuality and was living with a woman, two hundred miles south of my birthplace. In that instance, in the 70s, many lesbians were losing their children because of their 'unnatural relationships'. I never tried to stop her father from seeing her, even though I didn't want to, but he decided, 'a clean break is best.' Then it was up to me to ameliorate any fallout from his absence, in as age appropriate a way as I could. She was mildly curious about him, as a teenager. I told her that I would give her any information that I had, but she lost interest.
Our second was achieved via sperm donor, who wasn't interested in being a 'father', but was happy to remain in contact, should she, at anytime want to meet, or know anything about him. We talked openly about him and she met him a few times when she was a small child, but his life took another direction and we're no longer in contact. Both girls were raised with contact with grandfathers, uncles, male friends, gay and straight, and crucially, other children of same sex families. Despite our best efforts, because we all want whats best for our children, right? Both daughters are happily married to lovely men and our attempted indoctrination was an abject failure!
The story about the lesbian mothers who kept this man's father out of his life, perturbed me. How did they keep him out? Did he not have access to legally arranged visitation? Did he fight to retain contact with his son? There isn't a person alive that could've kept me from my children, short of locking me up!
This was the aspect of this story that was missing for me. Did he ask his father why he'd not been present in his life?
Finally, the academic article section was a hoot! Seven Asexuals, who may, or may not be having sex!! Hilarious.
Thanks again, sisters. Long may you flourish ✊✊
Great episode, as usual. I'm much more inclined towards the deficit model of men, as Kathleen put it, but I appreciate that what a lot of us feminists have been doing for decades isn't working very well too reduce male violence or change society.
I think Kathleen puts up a bit of a strawman, though, when she says 'My 18 year old son isn't benefiting from rape.' Accepting that he isn't, that's not the point; it's like he's won the lottery but just isn't collecting his winnings. If he wanted to, he could coerce a woman into sex tomorrow and get away with it. If he wanted to discredit a woman, he could call her a liar and a slut. If he and his friends wanted to scare a woman for a bit of fun on a night out, he could. It isn't that all men constantly benefit from all aspects of patriarchy, but that the resource is there to tap into any time they choose. I couldn't benefit from the rape system in any way, because I'm a woman. That's how I understand 'all men benefit from patriarchy', because all men can, though not all men do.
I love the podcast and it makes my Fridays. It was a good debate between Julie and Kathleen but I think a few tricks were missed here. The first was that Robert Oscar Lopez’s account of his upbringing by lesbian parents was published by Christian Concern, a very conservative evangelical outfit which has been involved in various controversial legal cases and publishes articles suggesting that lesbians and gay men are unhealthy and disordered. It publishes pieces advocating for conversion therapy for same-sex attracted people, called ‘testimonies of transformation’. If we take Robert’s article at face value, as I think we must, we can agree that he’s had a difficult upbringing. Not all lesbian mothers are great parents. Who’d have guessed it? Robert’s story is taken from a book entitled Jepthah’s Children. I haven’t read it and don’t intend to, but its subtitle is ‘The innocent casualties of same-sex parenting’ so I think we can all work out what its argument is.
My other quibble is that the podcast didn’t make anything of the link between that story and the previous discussion about gay clergy marrying and same-sex blessings in Church of England churches. Christian Concern illustrates perfectly that it’s not only African church leaders who have extremely conservative views about sexuality. It’s not only woke progressives (in the Church of England and other churches, including the Catholic Church) who argue that there are theological arguments for recognising same-sex relationships. Now, I agree with Julie that there are good reasons for opposing marriage generally, but as Kathleen suggested there are also reasons why lesbian and gay Christians want their relationships to be recognised by communities that are important to them. Finally, I don’t think Jayne Ozanne is trans. She is certainly supportive of trans people but as far as I can tell she’s a ‘biological’ (real) woman who went through a lot, including conversion therapy, before coming out as a lesbian. Sorry this is so long!
You made me google Jayne Ozanne and while the pictures certainly scream "trans" right away I also watched a few seconds of a video to catch the voice just to make sure. I think you're wrong there.
I don’t think so. She apparently went to a girls’ school in Guernsey?
I listened to some different clips and the voice sounds quite different between them and not implausibly female so I might have been too quick to jump to conclusions there! Though being such an avid "trans ally"and appearing rather ambiguous still makes me a bit suspicious.
I know what you mean!
Lots of interest here.
Those who want same sex marriages or partnerships to be sanctified by their Churches do have a choice to stay and be celibate or to simply disregard the Church's ruling on these matters. I know Catholics who love parts of the Church and feel they can disregard the ideas and dictates around sexuality, or other ideological matters, and live with clear consciences the way they wish. Or they go somewhere else. The Catholic and Anglican churches provide communities and access to deep spirituality which goes beyond patriarchal Christian dogma. We always have choices, although it might take time and experience to see this.
I felt compassion for the somewhat embittered son of two lesbian women. He sounded as though he could be debriefing in a lived experience support group of some kind. I did read the article. Is he going through an especially personal rite of passage that will eventually pass with time, talking and insight? In my personal and working life I've heard many painful stories and seen people pass through them, let go and create different realities for themselves. I've had a couple of those myself!
The risk Is that this man's publicly expressed pain and bitterness could be used as evidence to make life difficult for lesbians who have children, some of whom may be boys. Don't we have enough 'lesbian' focused prejudices already? I think there are probably many stories of well-adjusted and interesting sons of lesbian couples, however. I know one. :)
Re all the different types of sexual expression and the resulting discussions, I've given up, but not without acknowledging the absurdity of it, to me at least. It seems like confetti sexuality. The LGBTQI + soup is bad enough, and I dislike it muchly. I believe we are sexual human beings who may express our sexuality in different ways at different times in our lives.
I enjoy the discussion and the disagreements. The two of you always make me think, and often laugh. It is generous of you to share your ideas, beliefs and differences with us so publicly.
Thank you as always! On a separate note, Kathleen’s UnHerd article on Rory Stewart hit the mark exactly. Stewart promotes unquestioning adherence to his worldview by all us poor ignoramuses, while he and the other high priests of knowledge guard the gates to prevent—God protect us all from it—thinking. The fact that he is still scaling the peaks of academia while Kathleen is out here with the rest of us dummies just shows how far our formerly great academic institutions have lost their way.
This was a brilliant episode. I think Kathleen is totally right - it is important that we lesbians discuss the ethics of our family structures and our children’s access to their fathers. I don’t have kids yet, but my hope is that I can ask a close male friend to donate the genetic material; a man who would be willing to be the father of their child and be involved in their life, even if not their legal guardian. Years ago I joined a Facebook group for children of sperm donors (and parents considering sperm donation), and I saw that deliberately withholding a (safe and loving) father from a child is very harmful.
I think we lesbians have to put the CHILD first.
We ask the same of gay men, whom we want to reconsider surrogacy.
I agree and was pleased to hear Kathleen’s thoughts on this. I have a lesbian niece who has three children conceived with donated sperm. The biological father of the oldest child (a boy) is heavily involved in his life, taking him to weekly activities and sport and to school one morning a week. They have a good relationship and his involvement makes my niece’s life a bit easier, since she is now separated from her lesbian partner so is single mum. She has 3 year old twins as well (a boy and a girl). Their biological father is less involved, but he does come to their birthday parties and has occasional visits. That seems to suit all concerned. I think my niece saw it as important that her children knew who their father was and could have contact. I think she’s doing a great job.
The fundamental point imo is that all children have a right to know who their parents are, and whenever possible they should be able to spend time with them, so long as the parent is not abusive in anyway. Whether gay, straight, male or female, the important thing is that the child’s interests should come first.
Best podcast yet 😉 Really enjoyed your debate and the way you each defended your corner. I’m with Julie on this. Want to support her statement that many divorces are the end result of abuse, mine included.
Absolutely get it that men have got to step up and stop letting mates away with sexist, misogynistic and abusive comments towards women. It is endemic in our society.
And the article about the seven Irish asexuals was a hoot.
Keep going sisters.
💪🏻💜
As a long-time listener and fan, I was disappointed by Kathleen Stock’s ‘not-my-Nigel-ing’ around the realities of male violence. Defending #NotAllMen? Men don’t need our defending. Women and lesbians do.
I remain a fan of Kathleen and the Pod, but I disagree with the way she characterized both male violence and the feminist response to it.
The point of feminist analysis is to look at the structural realities of women’s lives. It’s inaccurate to equate feminism with rank partisanship, and it’s derailment to focus on individual exceptions. It is not about any particular tree; it’s about what’s happening to the entire forest.
Male violence and the threat of male violence is ubiquitous and sustains a culture of female submissiveness, care-taking, and acquiescence which benefits men as a class, not just as individuals.
All men, not just offenders, benefit from norms that perpetuate male coercion and female submission in dating relationships, sex, and marriage. All men, not just overt misogynists, benefit when women and girls say “yes” (professionally, romantically, or otherwise) because they fear the consequences of saying “no.” All boys and men benefit from girls and women competing less fiercely, taking up less space, and demanding less compensation.
The boys/men you know are no exception. Even “nice” boys and “good” men perpetuate coercive behavior toward women and girls, regardless of what their mothers taught them.
Male social development hinges primarily on the approval and status granted them by other males. Male role models remain the most persuasive force in stopping male violence—whether intimate partner abuse or gang violence.
Finally, it’s not so-called feminist extremism that keeps men from owning and changing male violence. It’s men being afraid or unwilling to relinquish the systemic benefits they accrue by keeping women and girls on unequal footing.
Male dominance and violence won’t change if we continue to be naïve about its contours or offer endless “exceptions” and defenses. #NotAllMen is a red herring. #YesAllWomen!
Great episode, thanks for disagreeing so well. I was a bit alarmed at first but stuck with you and realised how important it can be for some of us to witness this way of arguing, and remaining friends. Thanks both xx
About children raised by lesbians - much already said, but I'd like to add two points.
One, children are often raised by women (birth mothers and not; by choice or not) in many different situations, cultures, times. I'm not saying it's always wonderful, but perhaps the whole 'absent father as a problem' is particular to those who live in cultures/times where the social norm is that perfect parenting involves at least one woman and one man. So of course, if your upbringing doesn't mirror that model, you might well feel you've missed out. It's the not fitting in with social norms that's the problem? Or, that that's the thing to blame your troubles on? But so many children are raised in so many different types of families/ other set-ups, and there are lots of other factors that are difficult/ distressing/ damaging for children, it's hard to know which factor has any influence, never mind the most influence. All the other external potential influences are there for children/ young ppl, whether they have two-parents or a single parent or a whole village, and whether they're lesbian-raised or not. Lots of ppl grow up with issues and we nearly all blame our parents, present or absent!
Two, no-one's mentioned Susan Golombok's long-study research on this very subject - the well-being and development of children raised by lesbian parents, compared with female single parents, and hetero two-parents. Here's some links:
Golombok et al (2003) Children with lesbian parents: a community study - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12518806/
Maccallum and Golombok (2004) Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: a follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers at early adolescence - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15482501/
Golombok and Badger (2010) Children raised in mother-headed families from infancy: a follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers, at early adulthood - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19840989/
Last point - is there as much concern about children being raised without mothers/ women as parents? (e.g. gay male parents, single dads ...)
Moi,je prefere ‘Allo,Allosexualite
Listen very carefully; I shall have sex only once!
I really enjoy your disagreements and thoughtful debates!
I saw the Sapphic Traffic drawing someone drew, that would make such a good t-shirt for the podcast! :D
Julie and Kathleen, please sell t shirts! And ship them to Australia!
To put this succinctly perhaps a lesbian project created in order to discuss issues affecting lesbians ought not start a discussion of lesbian parenting based on an article published by an anti-lesbian religious group whose agenda includes a broad faith based attack on everything pertaining to homosexuality and homosexuals. Do you believe that lesbians (and gay men) should be able to have and parent children? If so then what is the acceptable method that would meet your standards for creating such a family? Only those women who come out after they've had kids with their male partner? Via IVF but only if the donor has a legal right to be in the child's life? Never surrogacy because though women have enough agency to choose to terminate a pregnancy the same woman lacks sufficient agency to carry one to term? The fact is lesbians have been having and parenting kids for decades without or with a father in the picture. And as of today there isn't any evidence, other than religious anti-gay propaganda, that there are generations of fatherless kids from lesbian households suffering or falling to thrive. That is just ridiculous. There are a zillion reasons a child may not have a dad in his or her life and Christian Concerns push to find a causal link between lesbian parents and adult dysfunction is an old bigoted trope. That neither of you spent much time pushing back against this is very disappointing.
On the upside, thanks for the mention of Paula Ettelbrick. She was a real hero and mentor to a generation of lesbian lawyers.
As a lesbian pastor and theologian, I think having someone who is both Christian and lesbian would have helped your conversation about the church's blessing of same-sex couples. Love the podcast overall, but the flattening view of religion and the experience of gay couples within various traditions was a bit offensive.
To Julie's point, there are pastors who won't officiate civil weddings in the U.S. because they don't feel it's the government's business who marries whom; they'll simply shepherd those getting married through the vows they make to each other--because ultimately it's a commitment being made between two people. If the couple, then, wants to go to the courthouse and make it "government official" they can do so. In those situations the religious leader is there to simply bear witness to the vows and provide a ritual framework.
Another great podcast. But the “calf’s liver, rare”. I can’t stop thinking about Hannibal Lecter. Did you do Chianti with it?
This was, for me, the most fascinating conversation you’ve had so far. On a personal note, Julie’s mention of Paula Ettelbrick brought forward a flood of memories. In particular I remember how awed I was on meeting her to explore working for her at Lambda. As it happened, life took me in a different direction, but I am so glad to now have as a memento of those times the quote from her that “Marriage is a great institution, if you like living in institutions.” (In the interest of full disclosure, I and mine are now married, but we both think the institution is ridiculous. We finally succumbed as it is at present, in the US, the only way to cobble together the bundle of legal rights we need for a host of reasons.)
I am curious, with regard to the discussion of the article discussed by the aggrieved son of lesbian parents, what each of Kathleen and Julie think might be the ideal environment in which to raise children. My thought is that the nuclear family is not it, and perhaps something more on the order of an extended community of committed friends, whether biologically connected or not, might be the way to go.
Last thing: you know, I do think all, male and female alike, who share our concerns about the rights and boundaries of women and girls, have an obligation to speak up in whatever way they can. Male allies in this are very important and too few in number. So I would say that raising a male child reasonably should include encouraging him to speak up when needed.