Are Gay Parents Superior To Straight Parents?

Hanna Rosin recently penned a short piece in which she exhorted the superiority of gay parenting. It is one of those supremely superficial, navel-gazing pieces that manages to butcher the reality of sex, homosexuality and intimate relationships.

First, before considering Rosin and her piece, consider Mark Regnerus’ study of gay parenting entitled New Family Structures. In it, he commits the cardinal sin of questioning sacrosanct left-wing dogma, by suggesting that homosexual approaches to parenting are deficient to heterosexual ones. The most obvious reason, and most rooted in common season, is that the world is full of both men and women. One must have some understanding of the opposite sex. As such, parents of both sexes are absolutely crucial in order to ensure said children grow into adults with healthy views of both sexes. Dr. Robert Glover, in his book No Mister Nice Guy,  noted how the lack of a positive father figures often has a tremendous negative influence on a boy’s growth into a healthy adult. Of course, when esteemed academic, Tom Bartlett, heard of Regnerus’ study, he provided a shrewd insight into the intellectual rigor of the study, calling it “bullshit.” Profound.

Later that summer, Oscar Robert Lopez penned an introspective and thoughtful essay reflecting on his childhood being raised by two lesbians.  His experience was largely negative, as Lopez did not learn at all how to behave like a man. He struggled mightily with women, as his lesbian moms had absolutely nothing to teach them about seeking sex and relationships with women, as they had the benefit of living in the insular world of serial lesbian monogamy. Still, Lopez became a professor, a husband and a political conservative.

Despite his upbringing, he has made something of his life, but still struggles to this day with his untoward upbringing. His real self-reflection and introspection stands in stark constant to the narcissism and self-denial of Zach Wahls, another son of a lesbian coupling. The liberal media ignored Lopez’s story of anguish and lauded Wahls’ story, dubbing it proof positive of the triumph of female-centric parenting: lesbian parenting. Much like a Christian Scientist proclaiming their child’s broken arm has been healed, while the arm is obviously disfigured, we see this astonishing level of delusion with respects to homosexual parenting fanatics on the left.


Reconsider Hanna Rosin. She is the portrait of an entitled American female. She comes from wealth and attended Stanford. Her life has been handed to her on a silver platter. As expected, she cashed in on her privilege by pretending to be an intellectual. Her ideas are not just derivative, but smack of a strong degree of superiority and narcissism. Her most famous book – The End of Men – reeks of a virulent level of female self-congratulation for doing jobs men have doing for time immemorial while also taking a sick sense of pride in hurting men. It is heavy-handed and has the smug superiority of a clinical narcissist. She senses weakness in many males and women like her have tethered their identity to one-upping men as a class.

A man commits suicide because he can’t find work and his wife is leaving him? A pathetic male who could not reconcile the ascension of women with his own misogyny. Ugh, why am I so awesome!

A man complains that dating is very much stacked against men because women seek richer, more educated and more socially powerful men? Now he knows what it feels like to be a woman! Seriously, why I am so ridiculously good-looking? 

Yet another clear manifestation of our narcissistic sexual hierarchy in America.

In this piece by her, she blames masculinity, patriarchy and gender roles for the issues around child-rearing in America. She presents an ostensible gay male couple who, by way of their sexual orientation, are superior to a heterosexual coupling. This is highly amusing from an evolutionary perspective, as  she essentially calls out evolution for not properly selecting male/male and female/female couplings as superior to the utterly bourgeois coupling of a male and a female.

Her hypothetical gay coupling ignores both biology and socialization. She, like most feminists, pretends all gendered behavior is just a performance. It isn’t. One curious aspect of homosexuality women like her don’t consider is the exact biological parameters of homosexuality. Are babies born gay, but with no instincts on how to exercise that sexuality? Or are gay babies born with proclivities related to that orientation – often times mimicking the other sex; for example, are effeminate gay men born that way or have they freely chosen to abandon masculine norms? Essentially, are men born attracted to physical attractiveness? If that is so, then straight men value physical attractiveness in women, the same for gay men. Don’t ask those sorts of questions in a Women’s Studies or Queer studies class. Questions like that do NOT keep people  in those classes or people like Rosin up at night because those questions would shatter their worldview.

She does nothing to understand anybody’s reasons for who they are – just that if they buck the patriarchal norm, and then they must be autonomous decisions. Note the approach that a feminist could use here. If many gay men are born much more effeminate than the average male, then the issue becomes we, as a society, need to adjust norms on how we view men in order to not limit his autonomy. If the other approach is true – he has freely chose to not be masculine – the same analysis is used – we should not limit his autonomy in order to respect his identity. Once again, women like Rosin are not interested in whether gay men are born this way or that – they only consider power balances in society. Of course, through their own self-absorbed, narcissistic lens.


As usual, it is more heterosexual worship of the supposedly progressive, egalitarian unions of homosexuals. They don’t have those relationships. That is not how power functions – there will always be a partner in power and one who is not. The most relevant question is not as to the existence of a power disparity, but how large that is. Once again, given Rosin’s ignorance about reality, I highly doubt she would ever consider neuroses or personality disorders in her power analysis, much less the vagaries of personalities, random chance and the realities of life that affect power balances in a relationship.

Note Rosin is a female. She has been told that real relationships are based on equality and mutuality. The absolutely massive, narcissistic problem here is that women will assume they are equal with the alpha males they desire. See the fuel behind second-wave feminism? Coming back to homosexual relationships, she assumes that they approach their relationship on a purely logical basis in the sense that whomever is best a particular chore/activity will do that. That because of the lack of opposite sex partners, then equality can truly be had, as gender isn’t an issue. No, it is just that power in a relationship can’t be hidden or explained away by gender inequalities. Truly, the whole concept of arguing over gendered roles reeks of a couple pretending to fight over feminist/anti-sexist issues while it is really a power struggle.

For anybody versed in negotiation theory, the savviest partner will able to steer the relationship in a way that suits them. Once again, Rosin is seeking to tilt the balance of power further into the hands of women. Women, as a class, have been able to manipulate men better than the reverse, mostly because of the naivete and low-self esteem of beta males.

For her, gender roles prevent women like her from dominating a relationship outright. When one partner has sole claim to at least one significant aspect of a relationship, that means they have sole control in at least one domain of the relationship. Rosin, while pretending to care about equity, will open up all aspects of a relationship to “equitable” negotiation, knowing full well she will pick a man she will establish a business partnership with, with her as CEO a loving equal. Her narcissism prevents her from seeing her duplicity and control issues, so trying to reach her as such is futile. Her sheer insistence on negotiation not only reflects her knowledge that she can manipulate beta males, but also her delusional idea she can hang with alpha males. She couldn’t in her past sexually and cannot now as an intellectual.

When viewing gay couples, it is very telling she picks gay male couples. Rosin wants to put beta’s collective testicles into the feminist vice grip. Since women can rarely control the alphas they desire, they double down on controlling beta males. The oppression will only get more cruel and narcissistic so long as betas submit to women like Rosin. Rosin needs to show betas how much better gay men are than straight men, shame them for their sexist, vestigial remains of out-dated masculinity and usher them completely into the androgynous future where beta males will have absolutely zero power and are completely at the whims of women. Male privilege and all that.


Rosin ends with an appeal to soften the strictures of monogamy and seemingly encourage heterosexual couples with experimenting with a level of infidelity. Since this is in the XX blog at Slate, it clearly is aimed at women and trying to alleviate their shame and guilt for cheating on the husbands they don’t desire. For the men reading, it is show them, once again, the progressive approach gay men take infidelity—most specifically easing expectations for monogamy on the part of their spouses.

This is Rosin’s world: an empowered woman who has a powerful job with a large salary, coming home to a man in the kitchen, raising the kids and cooking dinner. She comes home two hours late – was she cheating? It doesn’t matter.

That man should be progressive enough to understand that his potential feelings of betrayal and sadness are little more than his deeply ingrained misogyny working its way to the surface. Real men respect a woman’s autonomy and decisions about her life. If she decides it is more important to work all day and sleep around, that is more important than spending time with her children. If she decides to go see a movie after work the same analysis applies. Remember, men, this is a situation into which you freely and consensually negotiated into.

Further, gay parenting simultaneously eases the guilt of parents of two classes – single mothers and work-focused mothers. Both feel guilt over not parenting their children correctly, the former over not having a male influence in child-rearing, the latter over their largely absent mothering of their children. Both classes need to decouple the need for either sex to have a strong hand in the raising of children. Single mothers need to prove that men are not relevant to raise a child, working mothers often to need consume media that either explicitly says or implies that their diminished involvement in their children’s lives is not just okay, but good for the kids. Remember, if you are reading it, it is for you.


In the end, it really is all about women and how they want the second-class objects in their life – their husbands, children, coworkers – play into the fantasy they have dreamed of since they were young girls, acting out princess fantasies in their bedroom. Mature women leave those fantasies in the past, women like Rosin substitute a princess costume and a gorgeous prince for a power suit and a controllable husband.

The buzz over gay marriage and gay parenting is a manifestation of this. Rosin dreams up un-realities of gay people’s lives based on fantasies of how much more progressive and less gendered homosexual pairings are. Of course, in her analysis she explicitly leaves out power relations not based on gender. She falsely assumes modern heterosexual relationships reflect male privilege – suggesting the sheer invisibility of beta males to women like Rosin. Maybe she is not bothered by power imbalances not based on gender – i.e. a dominate gay male and a submissive gay male? Given she is a feminist, it wouldn’t be surprising she is only bothered by relationships in which a man has the upper hand – as in hot and bothered. 50 Shades of Grey didn’t sell millions of books because of the patriarchy.

Regardless, it is stereotypical fare of female hypergamic-driven fantasies of how the world should work. Gay parenting is not superior to straight parenting and certainly not for the reasons Rosin puts forth. Her concern isn’t at all about the children, it is about making sure everybody adheres to liberal autonomy theory and divests themselves of gendered norms of behavior – so as to benefit women like Rosin. As usual, alphas benefit, women get increasingly frustrated and narcissistic, all the while betas remain the punching bags and pack mules for women. Leave to women like Rosin to take gay men’s lives and shunt those lives through her delusions about how the world works and how it should revolve around her.

It could be called appropriation of gay men’s lives, but what does Rosin care? It is your life as a male that is winding down while her future as a woman is so bright she will need sunglasses.

Read More: Feminist Delusions Around The Lewinsky Fiasco

90 thoughts on “Are Gay Parents Superior To Straight Parents?”

  1. I don’t know how feminists can expect an American male to be a stay-at-home dad with the legal system the way it is. In the event of a divorce/separation he will lose the children and not get a cent in child-support. Doesn’t seem very equitable.

    1. I don’t even think they believe what comes out of their months, since they know very well that only a successful professional man is equal to a feminist’s massive accomplishments. To the extent that they are thinking anything non-contradictory, they’re envisioning a servant, barefoot and chained to the stove, like their delusional representation of housewives. Unlike a maid, the man-slave does heavier labor, doesn’t play female mind games, doesn’t need to be paid (being near his mistress is compensation enough), and doesn’t compete sexually for any men invited to the house

    2. If the father is the stay at home dad they tend to win custody and child support. They will even win alimony. In fact, being the stay at home dad starts to look rational depending on which state you are in. Try selling a woman on that though. There was an article talking about how Beyonce’s success gave her options in love and the author was so far off the mark it was ridiculous. Beyonce could have any man she wanted and she chose the only black man under 40 that was more successful than she was.
      Amusingly the push for the removal of life time alimony in, I believe, Florida is actually getting support from a woman’s group because it is starting to affect women.

      1. Is it a guarantee that the men will win if they are the stay at home parent like women do or just more than 50%? Because women, outside of being found abusive, win pretty much without fail if they are the homemaker. So that is how it needs to be for men in the same circumstance. I do love how fast the feminists reverse course once they realize they pushed for something so hard that it does not favor them anymore.

  2. Science, primarily psychology has stated that child needs bot sex parents to develop correctly. Had just recently studied it from social pathology, psychology etc… Freud thought the same (although i’m no fan of him).
    But nowadays, science is not important. Blabber of unemployed middle-class super-privileged feminist gay queer whatever flamers has the weight in politics. I think outcome will be more and more mentally unstable, and both physically and psychically incapable young generations being born. I mean, why do not corporate capitalist who fund those organizations think about it for a second. That will impact economy.
    However i was always amazed how queer and other propagators of gay parenting rights, simply refuse to talk about it in scientific way. I was always met with some kind of stamp bundled togheter with the word “fuck”. “You fucking homophobe”, “Fucking biggot”, etc. Then i calmly try to explain myself in scienific way, and get the same response. Too bad it was mostly discussion online, because after a second response i would kick the fuck out of them. But hey, pop culture says it’s a nice way to behave.

    1. Liberal debate tactic 101.
      Don’t argue countering facts…insult the person making the facts.
      They are nothing more than emotional vampires… wanting to feed off your negative energy. if they insult me I just tell them “Yes, I’m a homophobe” very deadpan….then quit the fight. I already won.

    2. I personally believe that homosexual couples should be able to adopt. I am gay myself and I know for a fact that someday, I’ll be a great dad. I’m not worried about my future child having a female role model. My brother’s wife, my sister, and my wonderful mother will all be there for my child.
      I’m not going to raise my child to fight for gay rights. I’m going to raise my child to think for himself. I’ll teach him what it means to have integrity, and to never think of himself as inferior or superior.
      I know I’m going to be a great dad, and I shouldn’t be denied of it just because I’m gay.

      1. If you wanted to be a dad, you should of thought of that when you decided to adopt a gay lifestyle. Animals who are homosexual do not raise young. Neither should you.

  3. It doesn’t matter if they are gay or straight.
    We live in a society where children are raising children…and any adult male authority is considered a jailable offense. Is it any wonder Rome is burning?

    1. I think it does matter. Queer justification of same sex parenting is “because we can”. Most important, in every but leading countries of the world, same sex marriage etc, was approved because of pressure from the outside (smaller countries of EU for example). That is quite telling.

      1. The only reason it matters is because of who supports gay marriage.
        Here’s what I’ve found where the majority is…gays (obviously) plus a lot of straight women and their manboob husbands. What the women don’t realize is that they’ve become so masculine and take the lead in their sham of a marriage…they are actually living like lesbians.
        So solipsism and womyn’s voting rules once again. Children are raising children.
        I don’t fault the gays for being who they are…when you grow up in households where the Oedipus and Electra complexes are now common, that is going to be one of the results.

        1. BTW…the complexes I see differently than actual incest with your parents. Kids growing up in households where mother is the dominating leadership role and the father is in the submissive feminine role can lead to some messed up results for kids.
          Oedipus complex = mother is masculine, father is feminine
          A boy will relate to his mother for the how tos on masculinity…and become sexually attracted to men because his father was the feminine. Or if he is straight…he will be attracted to women with masculine traits.
          Electra complex = mother is masculine, father is feminine
          A girl will relate to her father for the feminine and become sexually attracted to women because her mother was the dominate one. Or she will be attracted to manboobs if she goes the straight route.
          So I’m probably one of the rare ones who think that being gay is partly the result of how a person was raised.

          “Turns out, the moms and aunts of gay men have an advantage over the moms and aunts of straight men for several reasons: They are more fertile, displaying fewer gynecological disorders or complications during pregnancy; they are more extroverted, as well as funnier, happier and more relaxed; and they have fewer family problems and social anxieties.”
          This leads you to believe that mothers of gay men are more feminine women rather than masculine women.

    2. Women are children. Leaving them to take care of children was equivalent of leaving an older sister to take care of her siblings.

  4. I read a piece written by someone who was raised by a gay couple and in his opinion it’s quite the opposite. He said that it was just awkward and confusing, and this was not because he was looked down on, but rather as a result of being raised by gay parents.

  5. So, feminists living in a dream world, and queer parenting ain’t all it’s cracked up to be? Why does none of this surprise me?
    I was raised by a single mother (dad died of cancer when I was a baby), bless her heart, she tried, and she tried valiantly. My education on my blossoming male sexuality when I was a teenager was a book she handed me at 14. Thanks, Mom. I’m still learning the hard way, just turned 30, on how to be a man. Teaching, and figuring it out for myself.
    She was (is?) woefully under-prepared on how to raise a man to be a man, so two women are going to be better? I can’t see how two lesbians are meant to teach a hetrosexual girl how to be a hetrosexual girl either, or visa versa.
    But what do I know? I’m just your run of the mill misogynist, and proud.

    1. When you have the case of someone like yourself, who grew up without a father, I wonder what the best remedy would be for how someone becomes a man without strong male role models in their lives? That is, men who aren’t overworked, hen-pecked, who aren’t outcast, and who have the time to provide guidance.

    2. Gays and lesbians that grew up trying to be straight might in fact know how to be straight to a certain degree but as society takes homosexuality as the norm more and more homosexuals that never tried acting straight turn up the more gay couples will fail at parenting straight children.

  6. Dreck like this article “Gay Couples Do It Better” from a harridan like Rosin passing for “journalism” only further proves how unmoored from reality this society is. I used to want to save it. It’s so far gone now I say let it burn. The sooner the better.

  7. This society is backward. Instead of placating to the mainstream it focuses attention on the outliers, the anomaly. Homosexuals are a tiny percent of the population and yet get tremendous attention in the media. We’ve totally changed our culture to reflect the minority. What did Spock say? “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” We got it backwards now. If he were talking about our culture he’d be saying “The feelings of the few outweigh the needs of the many.”

    1. In times of peace, where violence is proscribed, the only forms of power left are those that relate to cultural transmission; i.e. information distribution, wealth distribution. Gays tend to be high up there in those two domains.

  8. And as usual a quick little search on Google tells me that this Hanna Rosin character belongs to a certain unmentionable ethnic group, strange how it’s always so when it comes to destructive ideas for the traditional parenting.
    Sigmund Freud would have loved this, along with his partner-in-crime Karl Marx.

    1. You couldn’t tell from the name?
      With a name like that I pegged her as an Irish-Catholic mother of 9 from the get go. /sarc

    2. Funny how people with names like Emmanuel Goldstein create Emmanuel Goldstein out of some ficitous evil Patriarchy, when we all know they are at the controls!

      1. >> when we all know they are at the controls
        Well, you create a leadership vacuum in your race….. someone will fill it. There ar Alpha groups and there are groups which are not.

      1. Hello Mr ADL laying out straw-mans.
        I didn’t say all of them are from that certain group (want to avoid any legal confrontation here) but the ideologist, the pushers and shovers-down-our-throaters to normalize a unnatural state of society in every country in the western world around the same time with nearly the same methods, all just to divide and conquer to build up a new world order with their group on top and the rest that still survives as slaves just like their holy script says.
        Not everyone is a part of this of course, that would be impossible. But, the ideologies, the methods, the really influental people that can control political and social changes all come from the same ethnic group. Why?
        Because they hate us, like Voltaire said:
        Are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their
        hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I
        would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some
        day become deadly to the human race.[2] —Voltaire, Lettres de Memmius a
        Ciceron (1771)

    1. Very high. It’s basic math really. Almost 100% of pedophiles are men. (A “pedophile” is an adult who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children; an adult female teacher who has a sexual relationship with a 14 year old student is not a “pedophile” in case someone wants to bring up those cases).
      Gays make up about 2-3% of the male population. Therefore, if gay men and straight men molested children in equal proportions, only 2-3% of molestation victims would be boys. That clearly is not the case.
      People like to argue that homosexuality and pedophilia are not even close because homosexuality is between 2 consenting adults. That’s like saying a kid who tortures dogs is not a threat to grow up and be a murderer because he’s only hurting animals. Homosexuality is a mental illness and once someone can get to that level of sickness, there is little they won’t do to get sexual gratification.

      1. >> dult female teacher who has a sexual relationship with a 14 year old student is not a “pedophile”
        It ==would have been== hebephilia if she truly sought out the 14-year-old.
        However, typically she grabbed the dick because it was there in front of her 6 hours a day. The same story as workplace affairs.
        There’s not many Americans who “hunt” for a partner. Most just stumble onto one.

      2. Lot of the most prominent openly gay politicians had raped or been having sexually relationships with underaged boys. No doubt closet politicians are still gay if they raped an underaged boy.

    2. You heard right. There are actually homosexuals that had sex with little boys but are praised or pitied when attacked. WTF

  9. The photo of the two blonde “lesbians” looks fake as hell, like most stock photo contrivances.

  10. Homosexuals, as a group, are responsible for child molestation than any other group. Many of them have molested the children they have adopted.
    As for Rosin, she is a hack.

  11. The problem with any study comparing heterosexual parents with homosexual parents is that the data will always be unfairly skewed in favor of homosexuals. Since homosexual couples cannot have children naturally, it is always a conscious choice when they have children. This means that homosexual couples tend to not have children until they are older, in a stable relationship, and have the financial resources to properly care for a child. These are dynamics that don’t exist with all or even most heterosexual parents.
    I have seen several studies purporting to show that in terms of things like education levels of children and other common indicators used to measure parenting success, children of homosexual couples perform roughly equal to children of heterosexual couples. This is actually a tacit admission that a homosexual relationship is not the ideal arrangement in which to raise children because, if homosexual parents really performed comparatively to heterosexual parents, their children should be far exceeding the average child raised by a heterosexual couple due to these advantages.

  12. Man I hope those beta males getting oppressed end up going gay to piss off the feminists and not marrying or providing for women. Alpha males win out and feminists lose out since alpha males won’t give attention to ugly feminists.

  13. If it weren’t for Rosin, I wouldn’t have discovered the manosphere! I feel like one day going to a book signing and telling her that.

  14. I’m gay, and I highly doubt gay parents would be equal to straight parents. Not that gays can’t be good parents, but on average it seems irrational to completely ignore natural law and assume that any gendered behavior is solely a social construct.
    Like most liberal social positions, it’s based more on wishful thinking and “love” than emotionally detached analysis.

  15. I forgot the name of the three studies, but in 1993 a study was announced to have been completed and found the gay gene. The lead researcher was a homosexual, and also seemed intelligent enough to have decent idea of where to look if a gay gene existed.
    He gathered 50 sets of twins who I think most were both gay in Canada. He and his team conducted their research on the 23rd chromosomes of each study participant as that is the chromosome that determines gender, and somehow or another claimed he found “the gene” there.
    Last decade, two other scientists conducted his exact experimenter, one was a straight guy, and the other gay. They used his hypothesis, and conducted the exact same experiment. They both came out and said the results were inconclusive! Which in science research parlance when given to the general public means…..NO gay gene.
    If someone who is more aware of the three studies feel free to set everyone straight as I read about these years and years ago. However, the media in 1993 pushed this information out far and wide. Cover of influential magazines, and the like. Fast forward to the release of the other two who repeated his research, and not a peep! Swept under the rug. Typical of those in the strategic arm for the gay movement. Anything good, even if false, promote..promote…promote. Anything bad, like the DSM (The Bible of psychology diagnosis updated every 15 years for upcoming student sin the fields) in the fifties and sixties labeling homosexuality as a pathology and it is deny, ostracize, and use politics and the media to obfuscate.
    I have also heard that their are unsung opponents within the gay community who don’t like the idea of gay marriage and families. They feel it is contradictory to the gay lifestyle of numerous partners and “open” relationships. As a father, I don’t want my sons exposed to such nonsense. Yet, here we are.
    Soon, all kids will tell their parents that they cannot go to public school if they don’t take the required field trip to a gay bookstore for “tolerance” and “sensitivity” training in school.
    Too bad they have not read about real homosexual history, they get times where they start becoming popular, but eventually, the whole society turns on them. Unfortunate, especially if the psychologists in the fifties were right and they do need psychological help. If it is “normal” then I strongly suggest they prove it. Even their supporters crack gay jokes, and when they are no longer popular they will be the easiest of the victims to harm.

  16. I hope you know that this post is largely a giant ad hominem. Not that that matters much to me for my purposes, but just an FYI.
    Are gay parents superior to straight parents? To answer this, let’s turn the question around: are straight parents superior to gay parents?
    Well, the answer depends. If the question is “are straight parents superior when all else is equal“, then the answer is decidedly no.
    Yes, it’s true. I’ll explain why shortly.
    But, things are rarely equal. One has to remember that children are their parents’ kids. This sounds tautological, but couple it with this fact: all human behavioral traits are heritable. Then it becomes key.
    First off, you can’t draw too many conclusions by looking at children with their biological parents. Heredity will confound your results.
    On top of that…

    Later that summer, Oscar Robert Lopez penned an introspective and thoughtful essay reflecting on his childhood being raised by two lesbians. His experience was largely negative, as Lopez did not learn at all how to behave like a man. He struggled mightily with women, as his lesbian moms had absolutely nothing to teach them about seeking sex and relationships with women, as they had the benefit of living in the insular world of serial lesbian monogamy. Still, Lopez became a professor, a husband and a political conservative.

    …you can’t draw too many conclusions from anecdotes and/or case studies. Any one person’s outcome could have a myriad of causes.
    But, contrary to what you’re intimating here:

    Further, gay parenting simultaneously eases the guilt of parents of two classes – single mothers and work-focused mothers. Both feel guilt over not parenting their children correctly, the former over not having a male influence in child-rearing, the latter over their largely absent mothering of their children. Both classes need to decouple the need for either sex to have a strong hand in the raising of children. Single mothers need to prove that men are not relevant to raise a child, working mothers often to need consume media that either explicitly says or implies that their diminished involvement in their children’s lives is not just okay, but good for the kids.

    Parenting, at least variation among such, doesn’t have an impact on how children turn out. See, the aforementioned:
    All Human Behavioral Traits are Heritable”
    Taming the “Tiger Mom” and Tackling the Parenting Myth
    You’re doing well in criticizing the complete denial of biology and the rubbish women like her promulgate, but in so doing, you’re propagating a little rubbish of your own.
    Also, since I have a bit of experience with comments here, I ask all would be responders to this comment to read the aforementioned posts before replying to me, and, if possible, please try to respond to what I am saying and not what you think I am saying.

    1. Typical passive-aggressive fem, issuing directives and reading assignments.
      “Are gay parents superior to straight parents? ”
      “To answer this, let’s turn
      the question around: are straight parents superior to gay parents?”

      1. “To answer this, let’s turn
        the question around: are straight parents superior to gay parents?”

        Based on what evidence? That’s the point…

      2. Spot on, Uncle Elmer.
        This fuckin’ gay parenting bullshit theory sucks badly.

    2. You have experience with comments here. Not with raising your own biological child.
      GTFOOHWYFGBAGP (Get the fuck out of here with your fuckin’ gay bullshit about gay parenting)

  17. i don’t watch a lot of television, but given how prevalent tv shows about heterosexual family drama were 20 years ago when i was young and there always seemed to be a tv on in the background. i imagine kids who watch tv today are inundated by shows featuring gay parented families. And, when i say i don’t watch tv, i mean i still spend hours watching AdultSwim.
    wicked Wycked , ever seen Symbionic Titan? wadda’ya think it has to say about gender roles?

  18. If thats Rosin in the first pic, she has serious man face, or… he should go easy on the hormone treatment

  19. Hanna Rosin,
    The loosely organized collective Straight Parents of The World strongly suggest you to file for divorce, marry a young lesbian and give your 3 children up for adoption to the gay couple of your preference.
    Theories must be proven, and since you are an accomplished social scientist, we have no doubt of the imminent success of your progressive experiments with the American family.
    We unanimously declare you a fuckin’ crazy bitch. And we will make sure that this article becomes available to every person we know so that they can freely draw their own conclusions as to the level of intellectual idiocy you have achieved.

    1. Feminism is a power drug just like cocaine and alcohol. Please smoke some weed and pay a gigolo so that he can make you “cum”. By looking at your face it is not difficult to tell that you haven’t had an orgasm in years and that your husband dows not fuck you anymore.
      Ok, that is all I wanted to say. Thank you.

        1. Let us implementa participatory democracy here. Feminism starts as a drug that gets women hooked up on the pleasures of political power. Once it enters women’s system, it mutates into a disease that destroys their sexuality, femininity and beauty

  20. I’m gay and actively read and enjoy many blogs, thoughts and theories in the manosphere. I feel similarly about many of same issues I read on here about feminism. You probably don’t realize it, but there are a lot of guys like me. I know it can be frustrating for some, especially since Jack Donovan, who basically wrote the defining book on being a man in the past 5 years, is gay. Yet, just because I am gay does not make me a beta or effeminate so the assumption that it does, is quite frustrating and not part of my reality. It reinforces the negative stereotype that I am a weak, entitled victim. I am surely not.
    I also don’t live my life as a sexual deviant – I try to make responsible sexual choices as I don’t particularly wish to die from HIV/AIDS.
    However, like every man, I do desire to have a family and raise a kid. I want that person to be another male. Unfortunately, I’m long past beating myself up for the fact that I fall in love with men, so for me, the discussion about choice/mental illness/biological is about as productive to me as my female boss who wouldn’t know how to manage her way out of a paper bag.
    I don’t have the answers. I’ve been intellectually curious about why I am gay for years and years, but at some point, you have to just accept that maybe there are too many factors involved to isolate one of them or a few of them. I don’t think that I am denying anything. I am just tired of head-fucking myself on a trying to question a reality I can’t change. There is scientific data and evidence that suggests a ton of theories but there is no one contributing factor.
    I’m not going to say I’m going to be a better parent than my sister and her husband. If I did choose to adopt a child, I’d want to make sure that there was a strong female presence in his/her life so they weren’t confused. I’d do my best to give that child the best life I could.
    Yet, from reading the comments and logic here and other places whenever a discussion of teh gays comes up: I’m going to be a terrible parent, just like I’m a sexual deviant, with a mental illness who is incapable of this or fucked up at that or ruined this or that or wanted my dad or something.
    I just don’t get when it all ends — is the ultimate point here for me, as a gay man, to kill myself because nature/nurture/my mom/my dad/your mom/your community/the church/Madonna fucked me over? Should I die alone in isolation? Or is there a point where I just move on, accept the card I was dealt, and try to be the best man I can be without anyone (Wycked, Lady Gaga, Dan Savage or Hanna Rosin) speaking for me.
    Is there a place for a discussion about what it means to be the best man, a leader, and truly masculine that isn’t directly related to having sex with women? I’m asking honestly, without sarcasm.

    1. This is not about “sex with woman”, it’s about what is healthy for a child.
      Imho, girls and boys need different education. I find having a boy raised by a gay couple is criminal because a boy needs a real masculine father. Sorry, it is what it is. My dick says he likes 13y/o hotties in tight dresses, but that doesn’t give me the right yet to fuck them.
      Gay people exist because there are too many dicks for too less pussy and nature always needs lots of nurturing people and soldiers. Only one man in a tribe can be the real alpha.
      Sperm wars: girls need no education, they only need to be pretty enough to find a man. Boys need an education. That’s why children of alphas tend to be boys. They need training to be successful themselves. A gay cannot provide that training.
      Girls raised by gay couples… no problem with that.

    2. “Is there a place for a discussion about what it means to be the best
      man, a leader, and truly masculine that isn’t directly related to having
      sex with women?”
      Yeah…there was a guy 2000 years ago that did it. He’s in a book that has been a best seller for years now.
      But the tone around these parts is talking about Him is like shining light on vampires. For a place that preaches masculinity…talking about the most masculine of men makes you a freak.

        1. Thanks for the retort. Could you please explain your rational sane ways to me?

      1. Assuming that Jesus really existed, it would not have been a problem for him to act masculine since he was born with power to heal people, make wine, walk on water and talk to fuckin’ God. Give me powers like that and I will kick everyone’s ass even if my dad were a carpenter and I had been born in a barn.
        The issue here in the manosphere is how to become who we really are even if we are born without any form of political supernatural or financial power.

        1. research more, he DID exist there is lots of proof, now the real question is if he did perform miracles.

        2. in a celibate sort of way (assuming you don’t believe the Da Vinci Code) the Good Lord was pretty much the ultimate PUA

    3. sir you are brave to reply on this forum. You’re welcome here as far as I’m concerned….
      Don’t know what creates gay people…nature vs nurture vs hormones vs Freud vs genes . Who knows? Don’t think you are immoral or wrong but you are an outlier outside the bell curve. I don’t think same sex couples are as good as hetero couples. I think hetero man-woman couples are the standard BUT I think gay / same sex couples are good enough. Elton John likely has the $$$ resources to raise a kid adequately. Certainly better than these welfare-singlemother-fatherless-baby-daddy situations we have now.

    4. You seem to be responding to commenters on this article or the manosphere in general.
      My point here was that gay male parents are being used as pawns in Rosin’s piece into order to get men of a certain class to submit to new standards of masculinity based purely on what women want from them.
      You seem to be struggling with external validation for your homosexuality. You need to – and seem to be stumbling towards – properly value yourself internally.
      Still, even if you have a clear sense of self, it doesn’t mean you would be as good a parent as two well-adjusted heterosexual parents.
      That being said, I only talked about the deficiency of lesbians raising boys into men.

      1. Great points, 2Wycked.
        And you made a good point about it being about control. Two dudes, it doesn’t matter, there is one who is the alpha and one who is the beta. Women sometimes use gay relationships as an example of their ‘rule by committee’ way of life, which really means manipulating men into doing their bidding and pretending like the group decided it was the best idea. Any relationship, there is a leader and a follower. Yes, they are team efforts, but one person needs to steer the ship. By saying there are no gender roles in gay relationships is complete BS. From my own experience, and circle of friends, the gay relationships I know that last the longest have a clearly defined alpha/beta power structure. And it’s why many gay relationships don’t last, there is the desire to be ‘equal’ in everything. It doesn’t work that way.

      2. >>Still, even if you have a clear sense of self, it doesn’t mean you would be as good a parent as two well-adjusted heterosexual parents. <<
        I would be mindful of the fact that everything we are discussing is in the aggregate. We have no way of knowing whether or not he, individually, may be a better or worse parent.

    5. Ultimately, do whatever you feel is best. If it is raising a kid with two dads, so be it. Understand you are a man, not a prefixed “gay man.” NO ONE in the media speaks for you, carves your identity, or understands what you go through. Their entire job is to stir up all kinds of negative feelings in you, even/especially if they claim to be on your side. Dan Savage is a loud-mouthed sex columnist (narcissist to the nth degree, wrote a book about his getting married) and Lady Gaga a bored, unattractive woman who would be legs-spread for random guys nightly if not for all the attention and cash. (maybe still is)
      Hell, you could go traditional and find a lesbian who wants to pop out a kid without the aid of freak-science. Your only options aren’t gay-parent or be miserable.

      1. Thanks man– you’re right. Left wing media wants to define and use gays for their own agenda, which only really suits feminists, which is what 2Wycked was indicating.

        1. Not just feminists, but a whole cornucopia of interests that have a very specific worldview and agenda. No two groups have had greater clout in recent years than the social left and the economic right. Call it the old hippies and Stonewall veterans that will see their vision for you carried through no matter what.
          And the thing is, a movement that was born out of “free love” wound up being quite un-free indeed: attracted to men? Here’s your rainbow flag, your ticket to the GLAAD awards, and a bookmark for Savage’s column. Don’t ever question the dogma of a bunch of people that were (likely) born decades before you, and don’t you dare even think about having sex with a woman because that is only for dykes and trannies.
          Really, I think Jack Donovan’s work is really interesting for the very reason that it is so different from the “you’re diseased”/”ACCCCEEEEPPPTTT yourselffff” dichotomy that prevails when it comes to anyone who deviates slightly from the sexual norm.

  21. Man, I look at that photo of her and I just want to kick her in her fat rolls with my shin and also slap her in the face and then suplex her like they do it in WWE.
    I mean she is a feminist. Strong and independent. Just like Butler (blank slate theory). She can handle it. No worries.
    As far as a Butler is concerned, I would start with a jab to her nose, then a double leg takedown and then finish her with a neck crank.
    Fuckin’ cunts. I am just joking. But you really suck. You should have had monster babies for John Money.

  22. Honestly one of the best posts I’ve ever seen on ROK , if not The best. You nailed it .
    On a side note leftists hate hate hate with a passion that Regnerus study. Have you read about the lengths they went to discredit it? I’m talking teams of hundreds were working their asses off. They failed in the end.

  23. Two fathers and no female? well of course that will be better for the child.

  24. Homosexuality is political propaganda. All gay couples shown are the planned ideal ones.
    Gay couples raising children has a relatively short history and is a very small sample size.
    Society is so feminized and liberal that the gender roles has been nearly eliminated so it doesn’t matter who raises children they will either become trannies or manginas
    Gay couples only adopt until they are financially steady. Straight couples tend to mistakenly get pregnant and are forced to raise the child in an unplanned mess.
    Piece the puzzles together

  25. I’m guessing gay parents would be superior to straight parents by a long shot now a days.
    You have unmarried mothers caring for children by themselves, you have couple’s popping out kids with no preparation, and you have high rates of divorce.
    A gay couple getting kids can be a very long process and can’t happen by accident. Ultimately this means gay people are finically prepared, mentally prepared, and their relationship is prepared for kids.
    Additionally they are under increased public scrutiny so they have to be better if they don’t want their kids taken away.

Comments are closed.