I understand why people like Miranda Devine are allowed to be columnists. They shock people — troll, if you will. They say things that are meant to pull readers in, make them angry, and then talk about it.
What angers me most about these shock columnists isn’t what they write, because it’s honestly a whole lot of stupidity based on false ‘facts’ and accusations, but it’s the effect they can have on people who their opinions are aimed at.
The visibility of gay teen suicide is on the rise, and these writers still feel that it’s OK to write negative things about how they don’t deserve to be treated like equals in this country and how the way they live their lives is wrong.
I wonder if Devine has ever read an article on gay suicide and thought for a second, “I could be contributing to this”, — that for some boy or girl out there, it could have been her words that tipped them over the edge.
I understand her position on same-sex marriage and I encourage debate on the issue as much as I loathe that we’re still having one. I think having our personal opinion is a part of what makes us human.
But to exploit that by pushing irrational and false claims is not only unfair to the people she is throwing them at.
It is unethical, it can be emotionally damaging, and it is wrong.
I will admit I’m quite a strong-willed person, but this week has been one where I’ve felt depressed at times. I read what she writes and it makes me feel — sad. And that is something no one should be proud of.
So this is my message to her: Miranda Devine, you need to realise this debate is not about politics, money, or cultural beliefs.
The debate about same-sex marriage is about people and their lives, and there are more than enough reasons to support it. If you can’t see that, then you truly are lost.
And I feel sorry for you.
By JESSE MATHESON
LOL @ comments having a larger word limit than the main article.
I read Miranda Devine’s well-written columns regularly, and I’m not aware of any of the enormities that Jesse has spoken of (but done little to substantiate.) She certainly argues from a conservative background; but how bad is that?
Jesse says that her opinions are “wrong.” Opinions are never “right” or “wrong.” They are just opinions, and we can keep having them until the PC thugs (hello Jesse)take over.
Gay people are like all the other minority groups – constantly looking for something to take offense at. A few weeks ago it was the deaf people in a fit of outrage – next week, who knows?
Sure, in some cases a child in a single parent family will do better than a child brought up by both biological parents. Being brought up by only one parent does not automatically mean the child will not do well. But apparently, the average child brought up by a single parent will not do as well as the average child brought up by their married biological parents.
And, it seems that finance is not the only determining factor in raising a healthy child, although yes, money is a key factor. The social scientist quoted in the following article for example, claims that around half of the problems experienced by children of single-parent families are due to non-economic factors. The article also claims that some two-parent families are better than others; “Children living with cohabiting partners and in stepfamilies generally do less well than those living with two married biological parents.” (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/05/1038950146267.html) Miranda and other tabloid opinion writers dont tend to reference their arguments, but at least in this case, research that supports what she said, is easy to Google.
Craig
1. Miranda Devine links this to gay couples unfairly. Maybe if same-sex marriage was legalised, more people would be referred to as married and not just ‘partners’ ?
2. There are lots of studies done on the different effects of different households, and while children in heterosexual married relationships may on average do better than other households, I think it would occur probably based on finance. I’m not sure what sort of effect that marriage would actually have on a child, as the child would probably not be aware.
I was brought up by a single mother who had a major support network. It was difficult, and there were rough times, but I was given everything I needed and have a great connection with my family and they have loved me no matter what my choices, which is more than I can say for a lot of my friends who have both parents.
I’ve also been successful in my career. I’m saying this because I truly believe that it is a somewhat case by case basis of how happy a child would be in a family and I’m not even sure how you would even measure that.
To be fair, at least gay couples actually seriously have to plan having a child, which is far more organised than a lot of unplanned children popping up in heterosexual marriages.
3. I think the notion that a child without a father becomes a delinquent in these articles is fundamentally wrong. What they are really looking at is what happens when troubled youth in a lower economic society become frustrated.
Not having a father does not equate to being a troubled youth, I think it is a mix of a lot of issues which you can see in the cycle of poverty.
Yes, I recognise that a single mother with a child will have a harder life, but with a proper support network, and a loving family, I think it is better than any other family, and its only traditionalists that see the importance of both role models as some sort of ideal because they place importance on gender roles within society, and that is a conservative and outdated view.
This is my opinion based on some of my past education within Sociology and the lower-class
Miranda Devine is the one who adds lines like “a fact supported by research” and then fails to include any reference to the evidence herself.
Why are people so concerned about Jesse’s lack of evidence, when she herself doesn’t have any evidence?
Yea okay, various statements in Miranda’s “The Problem of a Fatherless Society” article are sensationalist, as you say. And yes, Im seeing questionable opinions, but still few “false facts”. I dont agree with everything Miranda says, but if you want her to play fair, then we likewise need to play fair when we criticise her.
Your chosen points:
1. Before you accuse Miranda of arguing; “that Penny Wong’s child is no reason to celebrate”, please consider the first sentence of Miranda’s article; “The fact that Penny Wong’s female partner is to have a baby is a cause for private celebration for them.”
Miranda is right that there is a reversal in societal reverence for marriage. In decades past, the term “partner” just wasnt used like it is now. There was a societal pressure to marry, especially if you were having children. If you were a mature hetero couple, it was assumed you were married. Now common phrasing doesnt even take the pluralistic approach of “your spouse or partner” it’s often just “your partner”. Im not saying this is good or bad, but Miranda is correct to say there is a reversal of values on this point – marriage is no longer perceived as being confidently optimal.
2. Miranda states that a mother and a father is the ideal household for a child. You state that this is a wrong opinion, and you cite others who have claimed that “that children with gay and lesbian parents are well-adjusted and happy”. Yes, but Miranda didnt say they are not well-adjusted or that they are unhappy. She did make an illogical jump from lesbian parents to single parents. But overall her point seems to have been that despite not having a father, “these things work themselves out … love conquers all” (ie Wong’s child will be okay), she still argues that married opposite-sex parents are the optimum. Citing Rodney Croome is a rather biased approach, but who do we trust? Others, including large groups of specialists, agree with Miranda: http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/are-children-with-same-sex-parents-at-a-disadvantage/
This doesnt mean that single parents or same sex parents fully suck. Miranda and others are just claiming that married biological parents are to some degree better.
3. That fatherless households leads to problems in society like the riots in London. Miranda was not the only person blaming the riots on fatherless families. A number of others said likewise, including people in London ( http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100100154/london-riots-absent-fathers-have-a-lot-to-answer-for/ ). Their prime minister blamed “troubled families” as a key cause (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/15/david-cameron-broken-britain-policing). Most of the rioters who were caught were not new to breaking the law. 73% had a previous caution or conviction (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/sep/15/riot-defendants-court-sentencing), and this suggests the rioters were largely people who were prone to getting into trouble. Statistics seem to support Miranda on in regards to fatherless families generally. Children of single-parent families seem to get into more trouble than others. The following UN report cautions that “The absence of fathers in many low-income families can lead boys to seek patterns of masculinity in delinquent groups of peers.” (http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unyin/documents/ch07.pdf p. 195).
But hell, in the end, you are right that Miranda has sensationalised, she has possibly also over-simplified.
Jesse, I think you’ve provided enough supporting information, re. Miranda’s unethical and sensationalistic articles.
It’s time Miranda herself came forward with actual supporting facts, studies and evidence, so far it’s just rhetoric and fear/hate mongering.
She’s no different to any of the ‘shock jock’ radio announcers (Hello Alan Jones), who aim for the lowest common denominator, attack anyone who’s different, pander to the minority, conservative viewpoint and attack anyone who disagrees.
It’s sad that anyone in the community(conservative, or otherwise) would be support her narrowminded viewpoints, and then expect someone who does dispute them to provide supporting evidence for their opinion, when she is yet to provide anything sufficient herself, other than heresay, biased studies and rumour.
Would you like me to do her other article?
Sorry, I’ve been busy, here it is:
Below I have dissected both of her recent anti-homosexuality/same-sex marriage articles and proven that not only is she wrong, but that her opinions are based on false facts and also that she uses sensationalism in her writing to further her opinions impression on the reader.
The problem of a fatherless society:
In this article Miranda tries to push these opinions:
That Penny Wong’s child is no reason to celebrate and that everyone is celebrating too much and that this is unfair as it ‘political correctness’ has turned the heterosexual norm of a nuclear family to being “kept in the closet like an embarrassment.” And that her relationship and the support from the public has turned tolerance upside down.
2. That a mother and a father is the ideal household for a child.
3. That fatherless households leads to problems in society like the riots in London
All of these opinions are wrong, and here is why:
This is pure sensationalism shining through in Devine’s writing. To say that people celebrating Wong having a child reverses current political correct values is ridiculous. No one could care less about Abbots children coz they don’t do anything as far as the media cares. The only reason why Wong’s child was seen as a big thing was because its an openly Lesbian politician having a child in a same-sex relationship.. it turns heads, it sells newspapers. You would think that as a journalist, Devine would know this, but instead she makes out that it shows a reversal in societys values on the heterosexual norm of a nuclear family which is ludicrous. The support expressed by people in society doesn’t show a breakdown of values, it shows progression of acceptance of different family forms, something which should be celebrated. She says, sarcastically, that we are apparently meant to see it as “laud as if it were the Second Coming,” that line itself is the best proof of sensationalism because it is extreme and untrue. The news is exciting, people are happy for her, to the majority it showed progression.
The debate over whether or not a mother and a father is an ideal household for a child is idiotic. It is being used as a tool by the right-wing to negate the same-sex marriage debate. There have been studies that have shown that children with gay and lesbian parents are well-adjusted and happy. Many Gays and Lesbian parents also adopt children in need. Here is an article with these findings: http://mindhacks.com/2005/12/07/do-gay-parents-have-happy-children/ and here: http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/kids-with-gay-parents-grow-up-just-as-happy-and-well-adjusted While it does say that children of Gay & Lesbian parents do show distress at homophobia, you would hope that in time society becomes more tolerant of GLBTI people and their families and that this homophobia will disappear, legalising same-sex marriage will help that. The recent report ‘For Kids Sake’ is being used by the ACL (who funded the study) to prove that a ‘less than ideal’ household for a child is without the biological father. The ACL and many right-wing activists/politicians and even Jeff Kennett from BeyondBlue, are using the small line that children are happiest when in a married relationship, which the researched defined as being between two biological parents. Conveniently, the report doesn’t cite exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, so this research is somewhat invalid as there wouldn’t be any research into how ideal a same-sex family is that is married to a child. Here is a great article that explains this in more detail: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2897380.html
Devine then goes on to link all of the above to the London riots, indirectly implying that same-sex marriage will lead to riots and social dysfunction due to a ‘fatherless society’, obviously ignoring the fact that the riots began as a reaction to anger of the younger generation towards police in a lower socioeconomic area. It was a riot started by gangs, there is no evidence that these children do not have fathers and making that claim that same-sex relationships could be contributing to the chaos is offensive, false and literally has no grounds in an educated argument.
So we can see she uses in this one article: overt sensationalism, manipulation of ‘facts’, and ignores scientific evidence and studies. She also makes bizarre links between unrelated issues.. in other words, she lies through her teeth to push her opinion.
As i said in my article, this is wrong and unethical.
Well it’s been 4 days, and no “false facts” have been forthcoming. I suspect this is because there are none. Sure, there are probably questionable assumptions on Miranda’s part though, like most writers of opinion pieces.
Miranda Devine is a nasty piece of work that has been writing shit about gay people for years. The only people that read her columns and agree with her views are the most bigoted in society. Shes a nutcase of the highest order. Like all right-whingers.
I’ve also forwarded it to Miranda with some comments of my own, thankyou for writing such an intelligent and straight to the point and non aggressive yet strong article, I’d not have been able to express that setiment myself so it was nice to be able to use your article to address Ms Devine via her email address supplied by Ronson.
Quit all the calls for this kid to provide examples of Miranda’s shortcomings … we all know she’s against equality in all its many and varied forms, because she’s a typical conservative thinker, concerned only that equality comes with a price tag that she’ll be called on to pay for. If you want more examples google her and read all about Ms. Devine for yourself.
Yes, when the highest tier of government in this country tells you you’re unworthy of the same treatment under the law, that’s a powerful declaration of support for the bullies in churches and schools around the country.
To paraphrase Dan Savage, whether they’re running schools, running for office or just running their mouth, it’s incredibly damaging.
Jesse, there’s little I’ve read on this topic that cuts through in the way your simple, honest piece does. I’m forwarding it to Miranda. Cheers, Anthony
PS: @Cain.. it’s not about teens caring about getting married; it’s about the implied consent for bullying given by any kind of apartheid
Cain,
A huge part of discrimination by the government is that we can’t get married. This inequity drips down to discrimination in wider society and in schools.
When I was growing up, I was seen as not being equal by the other students, and the law says that technically I wasn’t. That is wrong.
Another thing that would occur in high school is students asking how I would have kids or how I would get married, hopefully one day that won’t be the case.
Hi Derek and Craig,
Unfortunately due to having only a 300 word max column I wasn’t able to include back up to my claims without losing some of what I really wanted to say, although I would hope that anyone that reads Devine’s column that reads my column would instantly understand what I am talking about. I will, however compile a comment for you probably tomorrow where I will talk about that if you check back.
Until then, read this article written by my editor: https://starobserver.com.au/opinion/soapbox-opinion/2011/10/19/do-some-research-before-you-howl/64055
While you certainly have a point, I agree with craig: you need to back up your assertions with some examples from Devine’s articles. That would strengthen your whole argument.
For every gay teen that ends their life… a celebrity comes out. And it seems they need to have a comment or stance in favour of same-sex marriage. I would think a teen cares less about getting married, than being able to walk down the halls of their school exempt from adversity.
Devine’s work isbased on “false facts”? Sounds like an accusation that deserves to be backed up with evidence.
As always Jesse, a very well written article.
The problem with ‘shock collumnists’ like Miranda and Piers Akerman is they are rarely objective, aim to gather the largest readership by pandering to the minority and inflame issues for their own personal gain.
If some poor person, or for that matter, kid is trodden on on the way then that seems to be acceptable.
Maybe a lil accountability or being exposed to and meeting these people they happily and greedily exploit would help, but then the narrow minded are often too dogmatic about considering others. It’s far easier to preach hate and intolerance because of your own ignorance and fear of changing your mind or values.
Aaron,
Miranda Devine’s publicly available email address when she wrote for the SMH was [email protected].
It appears she still uses it at Limited News.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/julia-gillard-takes-a-pasting-on-etiquette/story-fn6bfkm6-1225947484687
I’d like to tweet this link to Ms Devine, or even email it but I can’t find where to contact her or don’t know how to use twitter. Can someone help out with the twitter thing?
Jesse Matheson your my hero!
<3
Great article can't wait of the next one
Well said Jesse, I agree fully with your statement. Everyone does need to realise this ‘debate’ is about peoples day to day lives, and not about something that should be governed by debate or by a certain political party.
It is everyones right to love and be with who they want to be with…