Talk:Judith Stacey

NPOV problems
We need to present a balanced picture of one of Stacey's best-known works, the research paper "How Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" When I found the article that was definitely not the case - the article contained a view that was friendly to the cause of same-sex couples, and nothing else. But that doesn't reflect the contents of the paper, which in fact contained some findings about gender roles that attracted media attention at the time the paper was published. The media coverage is probably Stacey's best claim to notability, so some information about the paper is definitely apropos.

Here is where we started. The problem should be obvious. "Her paper, co-authored with Timothy Biblarz, 'How Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?' argues that children of lesbian and gay parents develop at least as well as those with straight parents, but are more likely themselves to be open to different kinds of relationships."

After a some back-and-forth, here is where we wound up. I think this is balanced and sufficiently complete to represent the findings. "Her paper, co-authored with Timothy Biblarz, 'How Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?' found that children with gay or lesbian parents 'are more likely to depart from traditional gender roles' but also added 'A difference is not necessarily a deficit' and that 'Children brought up by lesbians and gay men are well-adjusted, have good levels of self-esteem and are as likely to have high educational attainments as children raised in more traditional heterosexual families.'"

Unfortunately, another editor came along and ditched all of the balance in pursuit of brevity, and we are now here, which is worse than when we started. "Her paper, co-authored with Timothy Biblarz, 'How Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?' found that children with gay or lesbian parents 'are well-adjusted, have good levels of self-esteem and are as likely to have high educational attainments as children raised in more traditional heterosexual families.'"

The current version following MastCell's edit is definitely NOT an accurate view of the paper. Belchfire (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Withholding comment on the paper itself for a moment... you mentioned that it was the subject of media attention, but didn't link to any media coverage. If there was coverage of this paper in independent, reliable sources, that would be quite useful for this article, so if you know of any such coverage please share the links with us. MastCell Talk 19:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is the L.A. Times, when the study was freshly published:  Note that the findings about gender roles are placed prominently.  Here the L.A. Times mentions it again, several years later, this time noting Stacey and Biblarz's findings concerning flaws in earlier research: .  I picked these out of numerous mentions of Stacey herself, as she seems to be a go-to source for the L.A.Times whenever they need a sociologist, I suppose because she was at USC.


 * The New York Times also picked up the story back in 2001, as did the Seattle Times.


 * Other newspapers have referred to the study in later years, but subsequent mentions are less useful because the stories aren't covering the study itself and the reporters are just cherry-picking what they want from it. Belchfire (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of "are more likely to depart from traditional gender roles" would need some explanation for it not to be read as "they turn gay". — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those sources. I agree it will be a bit tricky to convey the study's findings, since they are highly nuanced. MastCell Talk 22:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's trickier than it needs to be if we're trying to boil it down to a single blurb. ArtifexMayhem has made a good observation - if we aren't careful, some readers are likely to to misinterpret certain things.  Myself, I see "gender roles" as relating to things like career choices, household duties, opposite-gender interactions, etc., but that's just me.  Perhaps this needs to be expanded into a full paragraph.  Belchfire (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Avoiding the difference equals deficit trap would be my main concern. See also: updated — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a value-based perception and it rests with the reader to make their own judgment. It's not a reason to keep Stacey's findings out of the encyclopedia.  Belchfire (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actualy it's a point Stacey makes and I am not aware of any editors suggesting Stacey's findings be excluded (for any reason). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess you'll have to show us that, because Stacey herself said "A difference is not necessarily a deficit" (which was in the article, before it was reverted). Some readers will see a deficit anyway, and that is not for us to worry about.  If we let such concerns inform our editing, we forfeit neutrality and we are creating propaganda.  Belchfire (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judith Stacey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120203175159/http://nyupress.org/authors.aspx?authorID=3019 to http://www.nyupress.org/authors.aspx?authorID=3019

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judith Stacey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110401140435/http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/author/meadowstacey/ to http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/author/meadowstacey/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)