What joy! Boys wearing nail polish

It's one thing to be respectful of gays and gay parents. It's quite another to engineer a deceptive study and use it to assert that lesbian families are a better environment in which to raise boys than heterosexual families. That's what former Stanford University gender scholar Peggy F. Drexler, Ph.D. does in her new book, "Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men." Not surprisingly, a friendly mainstream media is helping her promote her claims.

In the book's opening pages, Drexler's message is one of tolerance for various family forms, as she notes that lesbian and single-mother families "can" effectively raise boys. But "Raising Boys" soon devolves into outright advocacy of lesbian parenting. In Drexler's world, lesbian families – protected from fathers and their toxic masculinity – are the best environments in which to raise boys. Married heterosexual mothers try their best, but the positive influence these hapless moms try to impart to their children is overwhelmed by that of the malevolent family patriarch.

According to Drexler, lesbian moms are "more sophisticated about how they teach their sons right from wrong" than heterosexual couples, and there are "real advantages for a boy being raised in this new type of family." Heterosexual mothers don't measure up in "moral attitude" and are less likely than lesbian moms to "create opportunities for their sons to examine moral and values issues." This in turn slows the "moral development in their sons."

Furthermore, Drexler asserts that boys raised by lesbians "grow up emotionally stronger," "have a wider range of interests and friendships" and "appear more at ease in situations of conflict" than boys from "traditional" (i.e., father-present) households. Fatherless boys "exhibit a high degree of emotional savvy ... an intuitive grasp of people and situations." Best of all, sons of lesbian couples are much more willing to discard traditional masculinity than boys trapped in heterosexual households.

For example, Fiona's son paints his nails, while both of Maria's sons dance ballet. Ursula's son chose sewing and cooking for his electives in seventh grade. Kathy's son has rejected playing baseball as being "too competitive" – no surprise, because in their local, father-led baseball league, "the better players get more playing time."

Yet Drexler's research has obvious flaws. For one, the families she studied were middle to upper class, older women who volunteered to have their lives intimately scrutinized over a multiyear period – an unrepresentative, self-selected sample.

More importantly, her research suffers from confirmatory bias – Drexler saw what she wanted to see. Drexler is not an objective social scientist, but instead a passionate advocate for lesbian mothers. She calls the "maverick mothers" raising sons without men "avatars of a new social movement" and says her book's "stories, voices, data and findings will reassure, hearten and empower" them. Her research did not measure objective indices of child well-being, such as rates of juvenile crime, drop-outs or teen pregnancy. Instead, Drexler personally conducted interviews of mothers and their sons and made subjective judgments about their family lives. It is not surprising that Drexler found lesbian families to her liking. In fact, her dogged determination to see only good in lesbian couples and problems in heterosexual ones at times reaches absurd proportions.

For example, though Drexler doesn't seem to notice, her lesbian moms, particularly the "social" (i.e., non-biological moms), cheerfully endure insults and disrespect that no parent should ever tolerate. Carol's son calls her "stupid." Bianca's son calls her "lazy." Martha's son hops into her bed and effectively tells Martha tough luck, sucker – go sleep somewhere else. Thankfully, in each case progressive lesbian mom dealt with the problem through patience and talking. By contrast, Dad – who Drexler usually portrays as being overly strict – would probably have had junior pull weeds in the yard for a few hours as he waves goodbye to his PlayStation. He is (sigh) sadly unenlightened.

For Drexler, boys raised by lesbians are a better breed than those raised by heterosexual couples. When Drexler was struggling to hold on to her briefcase and her bags, 11-year-old Damien saw "that I needed help and immediately offered it." Drexler is taken aback – a boy being helpful and caring? She notes, "When I thought about it later, it clicked in my head: This is a boy being raised by two moms."

Lesbian-raised Cody helps clean up the playroom. Lesbian-raised Brad offers Drexler a stool to sit on when she comes to his room to interview her. Both considerations are the product, we are assured, of their special upbringings. Yet Drexler could have found many kind, helpful, empathetic boys raised by heterosexual couples – like my 12 year-old son, who recently told his grandparents, "I want you to move next door to us, even though it will mean more chores for me" – if only she had been willing to look.

At the same time, Drexler refuses to see obvious indications that the boys she interviews need fathers. When one of Brad's two moms picks him up from the day-care center after work, every day she has to pry the 6-year-old off of the leg of an after-school worker named Ron to whom Brad is – pun intended – quite attached. A less determined researcher might see this as evidence of Brad's need for a dad. Not Drexler, who instead tells us that, given Ron's presence, Brad's mom "knew she didn't need to worry about Brad's lack of an everyday father in his life."

Julia's little boy says, "I want a daddy." Darlene's little boy tells his mom: "We could find a daddy and he could move in with us." Three-year-old Ian – fatherless by the decision of his "single mother by choice" mom, Leslie – watches TV with mom, continually pointing at male figures on the screen and saying, "There's my daddy." Leslie explains, "No, we don't have a daddy in our family," but little Ian doesn't get it and continues to point and ask. A problem? Not according to Drexler, who writes, "Will some little boys trail after men they don't even know, perk up at lower-decibel voices or hang on to the pant legs of the men who cross their paths? Maybe." But whatever it is, she assures us, it isn't father hunger.

She enthuses that "sons of lesbians went to great efforts to define the terms of the bonds and relationships in their lives that the boys from straight families seemed to take for granted. All terms in their lives were complex." Is this a good thing?

Drexler does allow that some male figures can be positive for boys. Who? "Grandfathers, godfathers, uncles, family friends, coaches" – in short, anybody but dad. In fact, boys being raised without fathers benefit because they enjoy "more male figures in their lives than boys from traditional families." But more does not mean better, and a group of men with little stake in a boy's life are a poor substitute for a father's love and devotion to his children. Nor can they provide the modeling that boys need – the best way for a boy to learn how to become a good husband and father is to watch his father do it.

Drexler believes that boys in heterosexual families are worse off because they are "stuck with a single male role model" – dad – whereas in lesbian families boys are free to choose their own. Yet a child does not have the judgment to properly select his own role models, even with a parent's input. The fact that fatherless boys usually choose older, rebellious, thuggish boys as their role models – and are often led by them to their perdition – eludes Drexler.

Drexler holds up a variety of other family forms and "nonofficial parenting figures" as alternatives to heterosexual, married families, including Hillary Clinton's village, "communal living" and "seed daddies." She approvingly quotes a columnist who writes, "With so many single mothers around, and double mothers becoming less of a novelty, it is the children of traditional couples who are going to be asked, 'Who is that man in your house?'"

The boys Drexler studied don't need their dads, but instead benefit because their absence helps create what one might call the "maternal dictatorship." For Ursula, the single mother of two boys, Drexler enthuses that there's "no discussion about parenting methodologies. No crossed signals ... no compromising ... the decisions, the choices, the priorities were all hers." Better yet, "lesbian co-parents achieve a particularly high level of parenting skills ... [and] a greater level of agreement than heterosexual couples. A higher degree of consensus cut down on conflict in the home, enabling a clear message of love and support to be heard by the kids."

Drexler has it exactly wrong – conflict over parenting methods and strategies is not a negative but a positive, for two competing and different viewpoints wean out bad ideas and help preserve good ones. This is particularly true in heterosexual couples, where both male and female perspectives are considered in decision-making. By contrast, in single parent homes ideas and parenting strategies are implemented without consultation, and the effect can be harmful. In lesbian homes, parenting strategies are used on boys without input from anyone who actually knows what it's like to be a boy.

While "Raising Boys" is being promoted as a harmless, feel-good affirmation for "maverick moms," it is in fact an attack on the institution that research shows is the best-suited to raising children – the family. Drexler encourages women thinking of having fatherless children to make that "leap of faith." But the rates of all major youth pathologies, including juvenile crime, teen pregnancy, teen drug abuse and school dropouts, are tightly correlated with fatherlessness. Drexler waxes poetic about the nebulous benefits of fatherless parenting, but makes little attempt to explain why fatherless families produce so many troubled and pathological children.

The boys raised by the well-heeled, educated San Francisco lesbian couples Drexler studied will probably do better than most fatherless boys because their socioeconomic status is higher. But nothing in Drexler's research indicates that an extra mom can replace the strength, tough love and modeling a father gives his son.

...some people do marry for religious reasons and something called love too. "How many of those divorced people out there married for something other than "love," moog?"
People marry for a multitude of reasons.
Some religious people get divorced too, including some that married for religious reasons. My parents married for love AND religious reasons--they're still married too.
I hate to pour cold water on your idealism, but it's just like domestic adoption...you don't do it if you have a lick of sense.

In your opinion I guess.

Sorry, I do have sense. I won't bore you with all the details. But I guess it is bad to have idealism, optimism, and to have a positive outlook on life. It isn't to me. I have seen too many things happen over 10 years of teaching to conclude otherwise. And yes, I have had plenty of disappointments and bad things happen. But I use that as a chance to grow and try to become a better person.

The parents of my students are often wonderful ones. I appreciate the opportunity I have each year to get to know them too. In one month of school, I have seen many miracles happen already. I can't wait for the rest of the year.

OK, I better get back to the topic. Boys wearing nail polish is just plain stupid, to put it bluntly. Ick!!!!!

Dear Moog:

Our firstborn, my son, started kindergarten a few weeks ago. Every day, he comes home with a little smiley face on his "daily progress chart." I am so proud of how much he has learned and how well he behaves.

In my house, I am the "mean momma." I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. The other kids on the block who don't get enough attention or correction all know me as the "mean momma." I parent all of them when they are in my house.

My husband's father died when he was just 3; his grandfather stepped into the role, but he, too, died, when my husband was just 14. At 14, my husband became "Man of the House." He is a VERY involved parent. He's equally loving and firm...I couldn't ask for better. My kids just glow around him when he praises them or shows them affection (which he does daily), and one strong word from them has them skidding to a stop.

I've had several women on the street sing my husband's praies to me. They've noticed how involved he is with our children, how attentive and protective he is, and they only wish their own husbands could spend that much quality time with their children.

You can see a difference in the kids, too. The ones with involved dads tend to be respectful and well behaved. The ones with absent parents (whether the parents aren't living in the home or are, but don't pay attention) can be heathens.

This is not to say having a dad in the house is always a perfect situation. There are abusive dads, just as their are abusive moms. But from my experience, good dads turn out loving sons. Moreover, good dads bring a lot to their daughters, by showing them what kind of men they should be looking for in a future husband.

What a wonderful, wonderful letter! You and your husband sound like wonderful parents too, the kind of parents of some of my students (and my own) whom I have grown to love and respect immensely.

You are dead on about having involved fathers. The most respectful and well-behaved students I ever had were 2 sisters (in two different years) whose dad really taught them to respect others. Involved fathers make SO much of a difference.

That is one of my biggest sounding boards or "political agendas", for fathers to be involved with their kids. Of course, there are many that have to work long hours, but if the time they spend with their kids is high on quality and substance, then it goes a long way.

One other thing to note that fathers who respect their wives do a great service too. If I ever sassed my mom, I knew I was in trouble. It took me quite a few times (and quite a few sore hind ends), but I did learn.

Your husband is another example of someone who used tragedy in life to rise above it and become stronger, instead of as an excuse. You got lucky I would say.

I am the oldest of 8 children. Not everything was perfect in our house, but we had what we needed and were taught and raised wonderfully by my mother and father. All of us were good students and have gone on to become successful in our chosen vocations (that includes my sister as a homemaker--she was a college valedictorian).

My mom has said one of the most important things to her is that we turn out to be good kids. We all have and try hard to live up to her wish. She doesn't care if we don't all become doctors or go to Harvard, but that we do live the best life we can, striving to do that what is right.

Someday I hope to have that opportunity to become a father--that is another reason why I push so hard for fathers to be involved--they have a wonderful opportunity and should not waste it.

I am so excited about my little first graders this year. This last week was something else. Two of my lowest ones decided that they could do stuff after all and made huge progress in all areas. One shy kid was in tears at the beginning of the week, but came to tutoring that I do at the library and left smiling and excited. I do "learning clubs" a couple times a week during part of lunch recess where the kids can come if they want and learn about extra things like seashells. This week, I had about 9 boys come and they were so excited. One kept saying, "That was awesome." It's funner than heck, I tell ya.

It sounds like you got one of those type of students as a son.

We mustn't forget about those wonderful moms either. Man, I'm sounding British.

A MOM and a DAD are the most wonderful things to have. I always tell my boy students to tell their moms they are the most beautiful girls in the world (until they get married that is).

Thank you so much for your letter.

Peggy F. Drexler, Ph.D., a research psychologist, writer and lecturer who worked as a Stanford University gender scholar from 1999-2003, is an advisory board member of the San Francisco Day School.

******

Peggy Drexler, a researcher at Stanford University, wrote an article last year on the topic of "mothers in combat".

"the departure of a mother - the great resilient nurturer who offers the milk of herself to her child, no matter the cost - unsettles us more deeply."

"We think it's a tragedy when a child loses a father, but when a child loses a mother, it feels like a tragedy of a higher order. But when the death results from the mother's willingness to take risks still not typically assumed by women - such as flying into space or going to war - we can feel that some order of nature has been violated."

"It is clear that American mothers have taken on the mortal career risks long associated with men. But we're torn by this progress in women's advancement. Most of us applaud the risks such women take. And in the next breath, we ask how, in good conscience, a mother could leave her kids and deliberately put herself in harm's way: What are they thinking? They're mothers!

"It is the right of all women - mothers or not - to leave home and take risks. Only when we accept that the mothers can keep the home fires burning and fight oil fires in Iraq will we truly honor motherhood. Only at that point will we accept servicewomen - mothers included - in their rightful roles in combat ...

" ...a mother has a duty to herself, her country, and, yes, her children, to fly as high as she can ..."

Peggy Drexler, Ph.D., is a former gender scholar at Stanford University and faculty member of the Payne-Whitney Clinic of New York Hospital/Cornell Medical School. She is currently a member of the board of NYU’s Child Study Center.

******

” Peggy Drexler’s “study” is a veiled attempt to validate nontraditional parent families. Her research claims the impact of raising boys in a nontraditional parent family lacking males is on solid ground even though she fails to apply basic research principles.

Drexler’s book contains a severe demographic bias towards San Francisco residents and Jews by (admittedly) not properly weighing her research against the population outside San Francisco.

She claims that fewer than 25 percent of families are of the mom-and-dad variety, yet highly regarded research completely contradicts her claims. One study reported by Haya Nasser, of USA Today, says 56 percent of the nations children live with both biological parents — with that number on the rise.

Finally, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ survey on child health completely contradicts the point of Drexler’s book. Among the results reported: “Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk for drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy and criminality.”

Drexler’s research methods are highly dubious and her book is a discredit to all Jewish parents, traditional or otherwise.

Richard Israel | San Ramon

******

Aug. 26 article that mentions that psychologist Peggy Drexler has “a son, 27, and an adopted daughter who will soon become a bat mitzvah.” Why mention adoption in such a context if not to imply that the adopted child has a different status in the family?

J. Crew Group, Inc

Millard (Mickey) S. Drexler:
Chairman and CEO

Peggy Drexler, PhD:
Spouse of Chairman

2003-2004 Election Cycle Contribution Statistics

Total Spent: $110,000.00

99.91% to Democratic Party candidates
0.09% to Republican Party candidates
0% to Other candidates

Millard (Mickey) S. Drexler - Chairman and CEO

$2,000 to DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) on 2003-03-11
(FEC Schedule A: 23020173316)

$1,000 to FRIENDS OF BARBARA BOXER (D) on 2003-03-11
(FEC Schedule A: 23020171752)

$5,000 to DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) on 2003-03-31
(FEC Schedule A: 23990774221)

$2,000 to DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) on 2003-03-31
(FEC Schedule A: 23020173321)

$1,000 to FRIENDS OF BARBARA BOXER (D) on 2003-03-31
(FEC Schedule A: 23020171752)

$500 to FRIENDS OF SCHUMER (D) on 2003-06-02
(FEC Schedule A: 23020310123)

$2,000 to FRIENDS OF SCHUMER (D) on 2003-06-02
(FEC Schedule A: 23020310123)

$1,000 to FRIENDS OF CHRIS DODD 2004 (D) on 2003-06-30
(FEC Schedule A: 23020280965)

$1,000 to FRIENDS OF CHRIS DODD 2004 (D) on 2003-06-30
(FEC Schedule A: 23020280964)

$2,000 to JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT INC (D) on 2003-08-26
(FEC Schedule A: 23992127033)

$4,900 to PAC TO THE FUTURE (D) on 2003-09-22
(FEC Schedule A: 23992030991)

$100 to PAC TO THE FUTURE (R) on 2003-09-22
(FEC Schedule A: 23992030991)

$1,000 to DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) on 2003-09-30
(FEC Schedule A: 23020403418)

$10,000 to DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (D) on 2003-10-07
(FEC Schedule A: 23992320570)

$-12,500 to DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) on 2004-03-25
(FEC Schedule A: 25970141789)

$25,000 to DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) on 2004-03-25
(FEC Schedule A: 25970141789)

$1,000 to FRIENDS OF PATRICK J KENNEDY INC (D) on 2004-06-20
(FEC Schedule A: 24961826234)

$1,000 to FRIENDS OF HILLARY (D) on 2004-08-15
(FEC Schedule A: 24020852018)

Peggy Drexler, PhD - Spouse of Chairman

$1,000 to DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) on 2003-03-11
(FEC Schedule A: 23020173317)

$2,000 to FRIENDS OF BARBARA BOXER (D) on 2003-03-11
(FEC Schedule A: 23020171752)

$5,000 to DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) on 2003-03-31
(FEC Schedule A: 23990774222)

$1,000 to FRIENDS OF BARBARA BOXER (D) on 2003-03-31
(FEC Schedule A: 23020171753)

$500 to DEAN FOR AMERICA (D) on 2003-04-14
(FEC Schedule A: 23991380789)

$1,500 to DEAN FOR AMERICA (D) on 2003-04-14
(FEC Schedule A: 23992098560)

$500 to FRIENDS OF CHRIS DODD 2004 (D) on 2003-06-30
(FEC Schedule A: 23020280965)

$1,000 to DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) on 2003-07-14
(FEC Schedule A: 23020341973)

$2,000 to JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT INC (D) on 2003-08-26
(FEC Schedule A: 23992127034)

$500 to EDWARDS FOR PRESIDENT (D) on 2004-02-18
(FEC Schedule A: 24990850603)

$2,000 to DEMOCRATIC STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF CA - FEDERAL (D) on 2004-03-10
(FEC Schedule A: 25990213637)

$12,500 to DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) on 2004-03-25
(FEC Schedule A: 25970141789)

$500 to FRIENDS OF CHRIS DODD 2004 (D) on 2004-03-31
(FEC Schedule A: 24020191517)

$1,000 to FRIENDS OF CHRIS DODD 2004 (D) on 2004-03-31
(FEC Schedule A: 24020191517)

$4,000 to DEMOCRATIC STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF CA - FEDERAL (D) on 2004-03-31
(FEC Schedule A: 25990213637)

$25,000 to DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (D) on 2004-07-13
(FEC Schedule A: 24962228325)

$1,000 to FRIENDS OF HILLARY (D) on 2004-08-15
(FEC Schedule A: 24020852019)

Robert Knight, who studies families and same-sex parenting at Concerned Women for America, shakes his head at such a theory.

That sounds like "typical feminist ideology masquerading as social science," he said. It "really is the radical feminist dream" to say that boys raised in lesbian homes are the same as boys raised by mothers and fathers -- or that boys raised by lesbians are actually better because they're more like girls, he said.

Fathers are absolutely crucial to boys, Mr. Knight said, citing research contained in child psychologist James Dobson's 2001 book "Bringing Up Boys."

Thousands of studies assert the importance of father involvement, as well as the risks for boys and girls who grow up without their fathers, said Roland Warren, president of the National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI).

Children who live in single-parent homes have double the risk of physical, emotional or educational neglect, compared with children living with both parents, he said. Boys born to unmarried mothers are 2? times more likely to become incarcerated, and children who live in homes without their fathers are 32 percent more likely to smoke, drink or use drugs, according to research cited by NFI.

"The deeper, possibly unintentional, message to boys [in Mrs. Drexler's book] is that you can get as many women pregnant as you want -- no need for you to be involved, responsible and committed -- just make sure you're available for someone else's boy to be a 'male role model,'?" Mr. Warren said.

snip

syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, a former single mother, says Mrs. Drexler's conclusions defy "common sense, the human heart and social science."

Single mothers "can successfully raise a son or daughter outside of marriage," she said, "but those children will be at greater risk, and they will almost certainly experience a powerful longing for their fathers."

To say otherwise, Mrs. Gallagher says, ignores the mountain of social science that says "children do best when their own father and mother are raising them in a decent marriage."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.