PUBLIC OPINION > 'The New Normal' Is Not Harmful to Society
SodaHead TV
2012/07/24 21:00:00
One Million Moms has a bone to pick with NBC's newest sitcom, "The New Normal." The show depicts a single mother who agrees to be a surrogate parent for a gay couple, but OMM is calling it "harmful to our society" and "damaging to our culture." OMM has been known to take issue with things that promote homosexuality as "normal," such as a lesbian kiss found in an Urban Outfitters catalog earlier this year. But is "The New Normal" really harmful for society? We asked the public.
One Million Moms are not without their supporters, but "The New Normal" has them out-numbered. Nearly twice as many people agreed the show would not be damaging to our culture. But this particular poll was extremely divided across several different demographics, so before we get into the reasoning behind the results, let's break it down.
Hesitant Men
Some of the demographic responses were predictable, and to some extent we could expect male voters to be more resilient to the show. Typically, the male vote is more hesitant when it comes to promoting homosexuality. However, they were especially resistant to this one. They were more than twice as likely as women to think "The New Normal" is harmful to society.
Kids Don't Care
The age breakdown was a little bit more predictable, but even here the proportions were surprising. The difference between the oldest age group (65+) and the youngest age group (13-17) was more than 60%, and its support dropped off pretty consistently throughout. That seems to lend credibility to the show's title -- it is becoming more "normal."
Modern Families
One of the more interesting juxtapositions wasn't even within a single category. Given the age breakdown, it was obvious that single voters would respond to the show more positively than married voters; likewise, voters without kids responded more positively than parents. However, there was a notable difference between parents and married voters. Parents actually responded more positively to the TV show by about 12%.
If you'd like to vote on this question, dig deeper into the demographics, or engage in existing discussion about the topic, visit our poll about "The New Normal." We'd love to hear from you!
One Million Moms are not without their supporters, but "The New Normal" has them out-numbered. Nearly twice as many people agreed the show would not be damaging to our culture. But this particular poll was extremely divided across several different demographics, so before we get into the reasoning behind the results, let's break it down.
Hesitant Men
Some of the demographic responses were predictable, and to some extent we could expect male voters to be more resilient to the show. Typically, the male vote is more hesitant when it comes to promoting homosexuality. However, they were especially resistant to this one. They were more than twice as likely as women to think "The New Normal" is harmful to society.Kids Don't Care
The age breakdown was a little bit more predictable, but even here the proportions were surprising. The difference between the oldest age group (65+) and the youngest age group (13-17) was more than 60%, and its support dropped off pretty consistently throughout. That seems to lend credibility to the show's title -- it is becoming more "normal."Modern Families
One of the more interesting juxtapositions wasn't even within a single category. Given the age breakdown, it was obvious that single voters would respond to the show more positively than married voters; likewise, voters without kids responded more positively than parents. However, there was a notable difference between parents and married voters. Parents actually responded more positively to the TV show by about 12%.If you'd like to vote on this question, dig deeper into the demographics, or engage in existing discussion about the topic, visit our poll about "The New Normal." We'd love to hear from you!
An interesting fact that might have something to do with the failing marriage phenomenon: Research has shown that the partner preference of women changes with the menstrual cycle. A male who seemed like the perfect partner a week ago will suddenly appear like an insensitive, infuriating moron. At least that's how women might rationalize the fact that he suddenly smells all wrong.
Now, birth control pills prevent this phenomenon as a side effect of preventing ovulation. But imagine what happens when a couple decides to have a child after 5 or 10 years of marriage, causing her to lay off the pill? Exactly. "We became estranged".
And another fun fact: Women can quickly fall out of love when their instincts tell them that, since they aren't pregnant by now, there must be something wrong with their male partner. ...
An interesting fact that might have something to do with the failing marriage phenomenon: Research has shown that the partner preference of women changes with the menstrual cycle. A male who seemed like the perfect partner a week ago will suddenly appear like an insensitive, infuriating moron. At least that's how women might rationalize the fact that he suddenly smells all wrong.
Now, birth control pills prevent this phenomenon as a side effect of preventing ovulation. But imagine what happens when a couple decides to have a child after 5 or 10 years of marriage, causing her to lay off the pill? Exactly. "We became estranged".
And another fun fact: Women can quickly fall out of love when their instincts tell them that, since they aren't pregnant by now, there must be something wrong with their male partner. This happens even when a woman has made the conscious decision not to have a child at this point in her life. Her instincts / subconscious don't care, they prompt her to seek a more virile partner no matter how she feels about getting pregnant. "We decided that it was best to split and move on". Nature can be a #@ߧ.
My grandmother, who was from a generation of women that were allegedly all beaten and raped and who would be 107 if she was still alive today, was much taller, heavier and stronger than my scrawny grandfather. She bossed him around, not vice versa. She also had the higher socio-economic status, since he was originally a farmhand on her farm after her first husband passed away. But superior size and strength aren't even necessary. There have been countless fragile yet incredibly bossy women with sharp, hurtful tongues who clearly had the upper hand in their marriages and whose husbands were terrified of them.
I have actually never seen a heterosexual relationship where the male partner had the upper hand or even tried to dominate the female partner. In terms of social / diplomatic competence and verbal aggression, men simply can't compete with women. It is a myth that all women were collectively oppressed by all men back in the day. Things like class and socio-economic status (...
My grandmother, who was from a generation of women that were allegedly all beaten and raped and who would be 107 if she was still alive today, was much taller, heavier and stronger than my scrawny grandfather. She bossed him around, not vice versa. She also had the higher socio-economic status, since he was originally a farmhand on her farm after her first husband passed away. But superior size and strength aren't even necessary. There have been countless fragile yet incredibly bossy women with sharp, hurtful tongues who clearly had the upper hand in their marriages and whose husbands were terrified of them.
I have actually never seen a heterosexual relationship where the male partner had the upper hand or even tried to dominate the female partner. In terms of social / diplomatic competence and verbal aggression, men simply can't compete with women. It is a myth that all women were collectively oppressed by all men back in the day. Things like class and socio-economic status (Queen Elizabeth I certainly wasn't oppressed by her subjects), relationship power dynamics, and aggression / violence (which can be social / verbal in nature) are a lot more complex and multifaceted than the grossly oversimplified feminist view of human history.
FAIL!
A gay couple adopting a child is in no way harmful. But I would rather see it become easier for gay couples to adopt children who have already been born than to encourage having a surrogate bring a new baby into the world. We already have an overpopulation problem, and there are many children the world over who are in need of a home.
I don't believe it is fair to call someone a "bigot" simply for expressing their opposing beliefs (respectfully) just because they are different than one's own. Expressing different views doesn't make one bigoted it makes them human. In that case, that makes the person calling them out a bigot. It is being intolerant of those against homosexual behavior by telling them to "pack it up and get a life", regardless of the fact that everyone has the right to believe as they wish. It is also inaccurate to assume one doesn't have a life just because they do not agree with certain situations at hand. It isn't as if this is a 24/7 obsession just because someone happens to disagree with it.
That's all I wanted to say, I'm not hear to argue childishly about opposing views on homosexuality.
OMM absolutely fits this definition.
To be a larger percentage.
Instead of focusing on some show (because the majority of shows nowadays aren't even worth watching especially reality shows), they need to take this time to teach their kids about having sex too early, teen pregnancy, avoiding drug use, avoiding smoking, staying in school and making a worthy life for themselves. Those mothers and fathers should be taking their time and energy to defend and protect our Amendments by protesting, protecting our children from serious threats like rapists and child molesters, etc.
That show is "one" persons version of what the new normal is, Lol.
Myself, I have always said "Why Be normal"......Lol.
Normal is subjective and not universal.
Because see, while raising them, they'd like to raise them with as little controversial things and such to interfere and raise them to the best of their abilities and beyond. Those mothers (their motives or intentions are good, just a bit... um.. hm), and probably the fathers too, do not wish to deal with the whole homosexual-bisexual-lesbian-t... genre because if their children are exposed and become L, B, G, or T, they'd feel like they did not raise them properly (not bashing or anything, just telling it from their point of view after doing my own trials and research).
Alternate scenario: if they let their children become exposed to it, and they "change teams", then society will look at the parents, whereas if the children grow up and act on it, society won't look at the parents as if something is wrong, but rather their children. It comes with a lot of parents not wanting to raise their children wrongly or feel like they've raised them wrongly, especially in these times where chaos, morality, values, and such have spiraled out of control.