This is awesome

[moonwise]

Absolutely No - As in Zero - Cases of Abuse Reported in Lesbian Families

I wonder what percentage of fundie families report abuse?

Comments

[archaeologist-d.livejournal.com]

Very interesting statistic and not unexpected, imo.

[tiggymalvern.livejournal.com]

That absolute statement is something of a reach from a sample of 78 children interviewed, but I would expect the incidence to be dramatically lower in lesbian families.

[skurtchasor.livejournal.com]

As much as this is welcome news, the author's (of the article, not the actual study) egregious misuse of statistics makes me want to bang my head violently against a nearby hard surface. Because everybody knows that sample proportion equals population proportion, right? Now it just so happens that I'm in the middle of writing a Stat exam about confidence intervals and hypothesis testing, but that's beside the point.

I'm assuming the actual study won't make a claim as ridiculous as "lesbians don't beat or molest their kids." Not with a sample size of 78, anyway.

[lady-ganesh.livejournal.com]

This. Like Tiggy, this info doesn't surprise me, but I'm always leery when someone claims any population is immune from abuse.

[pointedview.livejournal.com]

Thank you for passing this along.

I have personally observed that some of the most screwed up people I've met(I'm talking alcoholics who are unemployable because they've pickled their brains so badly that they can't stay focused enough to perform analytical tasks) are the ones who are most zealously devout. I can't decide if they need to judge others, most especially homosexuals, so they feel better about themselves, or if they need to believe that since God loves sinners, they don't actually have to do anything to clean up their act. Do they think to themselves, "I drink, but at least I'm not gay," I wonder?

[arafel.livejournal.com]

People who are not very smart, for one reason or another, are the most zealous about anything - religion, politics, whatever. It makes them feel better to have something they can cling to, because things they don't understand are to be feared and hated.

Do they think to themselves, "I drink, but at least I'm not gay," I wonder?

Probably. -_-

[arafel.livejournal.com]

True. As has been mentioned previously, the sample size is too small. I liked the spirit of the article, though.

[arafel.livejournal.com]

Why would you expect so? I'm interested to hear your theory.

[arafel.livejournal.com]

As tiggymalvern and skurtchasor mention, the sample size is very small, but I wonder how many abuse cases would be found in the same size heterosexual sample?

[archaeologist-d.livejournal.com]

I agree that the sample size is very small. I would think they'd be able to do a much larger sample size if they used more than just the US. However, the same size heterosexual sample, I think they might find more but that's a gut reaction and not one based in fact. It also precludes what abuse is. I consider hitting a kid for something other than protection (such as batting their hand away from a flame) to be unnecessary and potentially harmful depending on frequency and intensity of the hits. I've never hit my kids but I'm aware of it in public places. Some people even consider it necessary for the child's well-being which floors me but that's another discussion.

[tiggymalvern.livejournal.com]

Statistically, physical violence is less common from women than from men; therefore expanded over a wide sample size, the expectation would be for significantly less domestic abuse when adult men aren't present. (Emotional abuse is harder to classify definitively, and therefore statistics aren't so easy to come by.)