Archives: August 2011

Cohabitation, Surprise Offspring, and Inheritances…Oh My!

08.31.2011 1:17 PM

Here is a question from today’s “Dear Judy…” advice column on death and dying.

“Dear Judy,

Two years ago, a beloved friend left me a good deal of money and the apartment I live in. We had been lovers for seven years, but by the time he died we were not. Still, we lived together and shared much of our lives together, and we had a lot of the same friends and interests.

Turns out this friend had a daughter, now grown (she is in her 20s). I’d never known he had a heterosexual relationship, much less any offspring. He never mentioned a word about it. But I checked with his aunt and also another mutual friend, and it turns out she really is his daughter. A surprise daughter (he never married the mother, and she didn’t mention the child was his until the girl was grown).

This daughter recently got in touch with me and when she came over, mentioned she was hard-up, lost her job (the economy), and could really use, as she put it, “some cash.” She added that since I inherited everything that belonged to her father, pure fairness should compel me to divide the money her father left me.

Judy, part of me thinks that maybe out of affection for my late friend, I should give her half the inheritance, at least the money part (I need some place to live). She is, after all, the last living “legacy” of my friend.

But I didn’t like that daughter, to be truthful. She seemed pretty crass and not at all sorry her father was dead, just interested in his money.

She’s called me twice since that visit, but I screen my calls. Should I answer? Should I give her anything?

Colin”

Hmmmm… Cohabitation.  “Surprise” offspring raised without a biological father. Money, inheritance, bad economy.  Common themes seem to emerge around here, and they often lead to messes and questions about how to proceed.

Judy responds that Colin should follow the lead of his deceased friend.  If he had wanted to leave an inheritance to this daughter he would have.  Honor his wishes and do not give her a penny.  And, you don’t like her anyway.

But what if he did like her?  Does this mean that our entitlement or tie to our biological parent can be determined by whether or not the friends of our parents think we’re “nice” or “likable?”  Yikes.

Although I agree with Judy that the most sane solution is to follow the wishes of the deceased, I would love to hear Colin talk more about living legacies.  Although his friend obviously impacted the lives of many people (Colin, his aunt, a mutual friend Colin mentions), he designates this biological daughter as the living legacy, even as unlikable and crass and unfeeling as he thinks she is.  Should we even be surprised that she acts that way since her own father did not mention her to his companion and inheritor of his entire estate?  How would that feel?  I sense that Colin would actually feel better giving her some of the inheritance on a matter of principle: you are a biological heir, you should inherit something.

I’d love to talk with her…when did you learn who your father is?  He didn’t find out until you were grown, is that when you learned?  Did you wonder?  Did you have a stepfather?  Why do you want some of his money?  What else have you inherited from him?

 


The Boyfriend Trend

08.31.2011 12:12 PM

Women of a certain age will have noticed in recent years items marketed to us as the boyfriend jean or the boyfriend blazer. These somewhat slouchier items are meant to suggest, I suppose, that you, the cute girlfriend, are curling up in your boyfriend’s cosy basics (even if you are not actually borrowing his clothes but rather buying items named after him).

Yesterday in the Garnet Hill catalog I saw something new to me: “boyfriend” items for the home. The print catalog copy reads:

This one’s a keeper. His favorite t-shirts as sheets. His favorite dress shirts as a quilt. The boyfriend trend hits home.

For the young and mid-life women Garnet Hill is trying to reach, which is cooler? Living with a husband, or living with (or suggesting you live with) a boyfriend?

Norming cohabitation, are we?


PBS News Hour

08.31.2011 11:39 AM

Host Ray Suarez interviewed Institute president David Blankenhorn and University of Minnesota professor Elaine Tyler May on new Census data about marriage in America. See the transcript here.


Welcoming Shannon Joseph

08.31.2011 10:33 AM

New guest blogger Shannon Joseph will be guest blogging on Canadian families, including those living in the Arctic. Thank you so much for joining us, Shannon!


Cohabitation Debate at New York Times

08.31.2011 10:32 AM

While we’ve been having our own spirited debate about cohabitation here and here and here at FamilyScholars, today’s New York Times Room for Debate takes up the debate with this question “Should Parents Marry for the Kids?”

Scholars including Stephanie Coontz, Brad Wilcox, Amy Wax, Sharon Sassler, and Ralph Richard Banks (who will be discussing his book Is Marriage for White People at the Institute’s Center for Public Conversation on Sept. 26) weigh in on the question.

You should read it for yourself, but here are some of the bits I’ll be chewing on:

From Stephanie Coontz:

Encouraging couples with these risk factors to marry is no panacea, since a conflict-ridden relationship or a disruptive divorce can be worse for kids than a stable single-parent home. But of course we should be concerned about the number of children whose parents cycle in and out of relationships. Several things might help lower that number: available, affordable contraception and education to help young people delay childbirth until they have a reliable partner and/or the educational, emotional and social resources to raise a child; a revival of family-wage jobs for less-educated individuals, to increase the pool of marriageable men and decrease the number of women who feel compelled financially to stay with an unreliable man; and relationship counseling both before and after young people enter cohabiting relationships.

I agree that, given our society’s understanding of marriage today as “as long as our love shall last,” encouraging couples to marry is no panacea. Agree that family-wage jobs and relationship counseling are important ideas. To solutions, I would add bolstering the norms of lifelong marriage and marital friendship–so that when our children do get married, they will have the benefit of a culture that is a “friend to their marriage”; that is, a culture that encourages them to love and cherish for better or worse, in times of plenty and little–rather than advancing the myth that people change, love comes and goes, and there’s nothing really we can do about that.

From Brad Wilcox:

But is cohabitation really the problem, or some deeper factor — like poverty or relationship troubles that predated the cohabitation? The truth is that these other factors account for some of cohabitation’s negative impact but the best studies suggest that cohabitation also has an independent negative effect, precisely because it does not institutionalize commitment in a way that is easily understood and honored by romantic partners and their friends and family.

Anyone who disagrees should answer this question: When was the last time you saw a cohabiting couple enter their relationship by vowing, in front of their closest friends and family, to love and cherish one another, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do they part?

This last question gets to a question I asked in a post that no one has yet answered: If most of us agree that serial cohabitation is a problem, what is the alternative? And if the alternative is not marriage, how is that alternative different from marriage?

From Sharon Sassler:

Most disadvantaged populations, including single and cohabiting mothers, also aspire to marriage. But many defer, believing they should first attain what is often unattainable — a stable job, some savings, and residential autonomy. In my interviews with cohabiting couples, most of them know that a long-lasting and satisfying marriage takes more than just love. Marriage is an economic arrangement. For many young couples, a firm financial grounding has been made more difficult by today’s bad economy.

I agree that most disadvantaged populations aspire to marriage and that economy isn’t helping matters at all. A big question I’m chewing on is “How do we renew an economy that enables broad economic prosperity?” My hunch is that it means, among other things, more local economies, less Big Corporation, revival of the family wage, renewal of thrift ethic (i.e. wise use of resources). That said, I do fault Sassler  for failing to consider in her post how the roots of the problem are both cultural and economic. In addition to economic reasons, many couples are deferring marriage because marriage no long means to love and to cherish until death do us part–and they want to be with somebody for life, but are unsure of how to make that happen.


The Future on Ice

08.31.2011 9:55 AM

My role as Policy Advisor to the Northern and Remote Forum of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has afforded me many unique travel opportunities. In the past 12 months, I’ve been north of the 60th parallel five times visiting Cities of Iqaluit, Whitehorse, Haines Junction and Anchorage. Of these places, Iqaluit and Nunavut Territory (Canada’s youngest northern Territory both in terms of population and political existence) struck me as being most unlike the Canada in which I grew up. On the one hand plucky, sophisticated, young entrepreneurs are organizing and advancing political, commercial and cultural initiatives to bring the region into its own; forging a new future for the North. On the other, communities with conditions that can be described as “Third World:” high unemployment, lack of safe drinking water, inadequate sanitation and poor housing. As an example, the infant mortality rate in Canada in 2007 was 5.1 deaths per 1,000 live births; in Nunavut it was three times higher at 15.1 . In the midst of this dichotomy, families struggle with widespread substance abuse, domestic violence and with shocking rates of teen suicide that threaten to make the promise of Nunavut, “Our Land,” unattainable for generations. Read More


Can Beyonce and Jay-Z Make Marriage Cool?

08.30.2011 12:41 PM

Yesterday the blogosphere was a-buzzing about the news that the power couple, Beyonce Knowles and Jay-Z are expecting their first child.  The first thing that struck me was, “Wow! A black couple in the spotlight that dated, married, and THEN conceived a baby respectively!  How unusual!”  It’s sad that in fact, it is not the norm, but on the bright side, it makes for delicious celebrity news.  And since celebrities have just as much sway these days as the president, perhaps the actions of this couple will give some fans inspiration to maybe, perhaps, and hopefully, follow in their footsteps.

Justin Dior Combs, son of hip hop mogul, Shaun “Puffy” Combs, tweeted yesterday:

The message was re-tweeted over 100 times.  To have a prominent young person–a member of hip hop royalty by birth–be nervy enough to distribute this message to over 200,000 followers is earth shaking.   Especially when this kid is the son of a man with multiple baby mommas.

Perhaps there’s hope after all.

Christelyn D. Karazin is the founder and organizer of “No Wedding, No Womb,” an initiative to find solutions to the 72 percent out-of-wedlock rate in the black community.


The M.Guy Tweet

08.29.2011 10:02 PM

Marriage Media
Week of August 22, 2011
Courtesy of Bill Coffin

 

1. Why Marriage Matters In the News (continued from The M.Guy Tweet of August 15, 2011)

2. Census Marriage Stories from around the Country, Google Search Results (by Bill Coffin)

3. National Fatherhood Initiative Honors Google Chrome With Fatherhood Award™, PRWeb

Roland C. Warren, president of NFI, said, “In our 17 years of tracking cultural statements about the importance of fatherhood, the ‘Dear Sophie’ film stands out as one of the most positive messages we have ever found. Dads love technology, so Google has really hit the mark by showing men how technology can help them be the kinds of dads their children need.” ‘Dear Sophie’ can be viewed at Google Chrome’s You Tube Channel, http://www.youtube.com/user/googlechrome, or at NFI’s Fatherhood Awards™ page, http://www.fatherhood.org/fatherhood-awards.

4. Marriage, Human Capital, and Our Fiscal Crisis, Pat Fagan’s Blog

Our Fiscal Crisis: We Cannot Tax, Spend and Borrow Enough to Substitute for Marriage. . . The continual slowdown in America’s GDP growth is explained by the decrease in marriage and families that are focused on children. As a nation, we’re no longer concerned with investing in our future by investing in the next generation. Our newest paper (linked above) plays out how stable married families and national economic growth are related.

5. Does Anybody Care about 11-year-old Flash-Mobbers?, The Washington Examiner

Particularly instructive in this instance is where the 11-year-old ended up: in the custody of his grandmother. We don’t know what the boy’s mother and father are doing right about now, but we know what they aren’t doing: parenting their son. . . Today about 70 percent of black homes have no father. Forty-six years ago, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan told the country that this was a national crisis, that figure was 25 percent. Did anybody listen to him?

6. An Ounce of Prevention: Policy Prescriptions to Reduce the Prevalence of Fragile Families, The Brookings Institute

Finally, the authors present simulations of the costs and effects of three policy initiatives—a mass media campaign that encourages men to use condoms, a teen pregnancy prevention program that discourages sexual activity and educates participants about proper contraceptive use, and an expansion in access to Medicaid-subsidized contraception. All three have benefit-cost ratios that are comfortably greater than one, making them excellent social investments that can actually save taxpayer dollars.

7. 7 Ways to Put Your Marriage First, WebMD

  • Start small.
  • Have kid-free conversations.
  • Stay in touch during the day.
  • Try new things together.
  • Bring on the PDA.
  • Make pleasure a priority.
  • Don’t be a martyr.

 

For more, see this site.


Hanna Rosin Responds

08.29.2011 5:08 PM

With her permission, I’m copying Hanna Rosin’s response to my August 25 post, “A College Degree is Just a Piece of Paper?”

In an ideal world, I agree that marriage is better. I am married, most people I know are married, (and for what it’s worth I didn’t and never would have cohabited). And there is part of me that is happy that people are continuing to hold up the banner of marriage. But the more I get into this, the more I am beginning to agree more with [Andrew] Cherlin’s thesis that continuing to harp on marriage is part of the problem. We are causing the increasing number of people who are not married to not think of themselves as family units by holding up this ideal they are failing to meet.

I definitely do not think that the non college educated who are in cohabiting relationships are like the European bourgeoisie. No way. I think their lives are for the most part a disaster, and increasingly so. I am on Ross Douthat’s team here – the sexual revolution was better for us, the college educated, and totally destructive for the non college educated. But not because they are cohabiting. Maybe because they are serially cohabiting. Because they are having children before they enter into committed relationships. I am 100% with you here on the diagnosis. It’s just the solution I disagreed with. It’s a mess, but not because they are not getting married. To say, plainly, “cohabitation is a problem” is misleading. It’s not a problem for a lot of people. For other people, it happens to correlate with their other problems.

As for the college degree analogy, I have to think about that. College degrees are not useless, and marriage certificates are not useless. But the study would have to be, is a married intact biological family better for a child than an intact biological family? If it were my child I would want him/her to get married, but I don’t know how to quantify that.


Finding Balance Between Life and Death

08.29.2011 3:38 PM

There have been several articles in this past week highlighting the Rudolph’s.  They are an elderly couple in their early 90’s who decided in the face of increased debility and dementia to voluntarily stop eating and drinking in order to hasten death.  They had discussed this choice with their family many years ago, had put it in writing, and then alerted their family when they decided to begin their fast.  Their family came to their side and called in hospice to address any pain or symptom issues their parents might have in their final days as well as to provide them support as family members.

Why this story has become news-worthy is that the Assisted Living Facility staff were not comfortable with the Rudolph’s choice and wanted to send them to the hospital and if not to the hospital to evict them.  The Rudolph’s were of sound mind to refuse ambulance transport to the hospital so the facility evicted them.  Their family transported them to a rented home in the area where the couple died a few days apart about 10 days after their fast began.

Why does the death of the Randolph’s bother some people?

Our culture’s connection to food complicates things to some extent.  I have written before that one of the hardest discussions that occur in hospice care revolves around our emotional connection to food, especially in the Deep South where food equals love.  However, there comes a point for many who are terminally ill when they can no longer safely eat or drink and traditional interventions such as a feeding tube or IV fluids will cause more pain than comfort.  We talk about how food aims to provide fuel for our bodies and if our bodies are no longer walking, bathing, or toileting then fuel in the form of food or fluid will build up and become painful to store in the body.  Let me stress though that the difficulty of these conversations often lies in that the person who is not going to eat or be inserted with a tube is not the one deciding due to being unconscious or not of sound mind to make decisions.  So the person’s children, spouse, pastor, and/or caregivers are forced to imagine what is best for the person they love, balancing what they think he or she would have wanted with the choice that they can live with.

We also struggle to find moral balance.  My hunch is that most of humanity would like for decisions to come easily or naturally without having to seek balance between conflicting goals.  For example, I love Paula Dean’s, cooking.  As a southern cook she proudly begins every recipe with, “Now, start with a stick of butter ya’ll.”  If I ate her food every day for the next year I would be dead.  Happy, but dead.  However, if you have not had Paula Dean’s Symphony Brownies (two layers of brownie with scrumptious toffee candy bar sandwiched between them) have you really lived?   Ah, the beauty of balance.

Happily, brownies I can handle, but what about life? How do we find balance for life: a point which lies between merely living (a heartbeat, respirations) and actively dying (crisis, pain, lack of meaning and purpose)?  I am encouraged that Aristotle, the master thinker of balance, also found this task difficult:

“For in everything it is no easy task to find the middle, e.g. to find the middle of a circle is not for everyone but for him who knows; so, too, anyone can get angry—that is easy—or give or spend money; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for everyone, nor is it easy; wherefore goodness is both rare and laudable and noble.” (45, Nicomachean Ethics)

It seems to me that the Rudolph’s children were able to achieve this point of balance: finding a way to honor the wishes of their parents to the right extent, at the right time, and in the right way.  We do not know if the Rudolph’s children agreed with their parent’s choice.  However, they were aiming for the good that respected the known wishes of their parents but also did no direct harm to them as well.  This story would be much different if the Rudolph’s had asked their children to poison them or overdose them.  In that case, I imagine that discerning the balance between honoring the wishes of their parents with actions they can live with would be more difficult.  Catholic theologians would most likely argue me down on this point since refusing to administer IV fluids or tube feeding would be considered doing as much harm as a lethal injection.   It would also be a much different story if the Assisted Living Facility had decided for the Rudolph’s that they’re quality of life was bad so they would stop serving them food and drink.

In the end, I think of the Rudolph’s children.  The death of a parent is always painful whether sudden or expected, in the midst of life or at its end.  However, what a relief that in the midst of grief they are not also burdened with having made choices for their parents that they regret or second guess.   What a gift their parents gave to them.


Is Marriage for White People?

08.29.2011 1:25 PM

On September 26th at our Center for Public Conversation, retired Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears will interview Professor Ralph Richard Banks about his new book, Is Marriage for White People? How the Decline of African American Marriage Affects Everyone. Our most recent CPC event was a packed house; reserve your seat by RSVP’ing today!


Anonymous Us Goes To Sweden

08.29.2011 5:09 AM

AnonymousUs.org, along with my personal story, got the front page of Svenska Dagbladet today (one of Sweden’s big 3 newspapers). This both online, and in print. The newspaper has roughly 250,000 print subscribers- in a country of 9 million.

Today in Sweden, married couples (both straight and lesbian) have legal access to sperm donation. However, donors are true to their title and do not receive payment. Each donor is limited to 6 donations. All pregnancies are initiated and assisted by a medical professional (no entrepreneurs). The non-biological social parent must write and sign a letter of consent to the procedure. And all children are given access to their true family origin at age 18, with their father’s information stored centrally, in a protected government database until they wish to access such information. And that information is protected for, I believe, over 70 years.

Single women may not access these services.

However, it takes all of 2 seconds to hop on a train to Copenhagen and impregnate yourself by an anonymous Dane, so the conversation is still pumping here in Stockholm.

Here are some comments from the article, translated by good ole’ Google.

So, she believes that gay boy’s children will have problems with anger and identification. How dare she suggest such a thing?

Like, they’re the result of real and true love, and not old outdatedheteronormativitet. Children * is * a right - for hetrosexuella through the agency of nature, and for certain other groups of a right by law.

- Actually, we should set quotas for the children so that LGBT-pairs have the same number of children per couple hetero-normative-pairs.

By the way, no where in the article did I ever mention anything about gays using ART. Nowhere.

And then there are the these:

One of the most thought-provoking articles on the topic for many years in the Swedish press, with the perspective that often (in our country) is completely absent. The usual (and unthinking) dismissal for ”empatilĂśshet” do not bite when Alana herself is so concerned by the topic she was talking about that she can be. Maybe why she so masterfully demonstrates the contradictions and lack of consideration of the ”donation industrial complex”?

Google Translate isn’t perfect, but you get the idea.

Just wanted to give an official ‘Thank You’ to Anna Lagerblad for her ear and her article.

 


The M.Guy Tweet

08.28.2011 9:21 PM

Marriage Media
Week of August 15, 2011
Courtesy of Bill Coffin

 

1. Why Marriage Matters, Third Edition, The Institute for American Values

“In a striking turn of events, the divorce rate for married couples with children has returned almost to the levels we saw before the divorce revolution kicked in during the 1970s. Nevertheless, family instability is on the rise for American children as a whole. This seems in part to be because more couples are having children in cohabiting unions, which are very unstable. This report also indicates that children in cohabiting households are more likely to suffer from a range of emotional and social problems—drug use, depression, and dropping out of high school—compared to children in intact, married families.”

Why Marriage Matters in the News (continued in The M.Guy Tweet, Week of August 22, 2011)

2. Relationship Status: In A ‘Stayover,’ The New York Times

According to “We’re Not Living Together,” by Tyler B. Jamison, a researcher in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Missouri, along with hookups, friends with benefits and shacking up, we can add the “stayover” to the pantheon of youthful romantic endeavors. It seems that emerging adults age 18 to 29 often spend three or four nights a week at the home of their partners on a long-term basis rather than move in together.

3. Asia’s Lonely Hearts: The Decline of Asian Marriages, The Economist

The flight from marriage in Asia is thus the result of the greater freedom that women enjoy these days, which is to be celebrated. But it is also creating social problems. Compared with the West, Asian countries have invested less in pensions and other forms of social protection, on the assumption that the family will look after ageing or ill relatives. That can no longer be taken for granted. The decline of marriage is also contributing to the collapse in the birth rate. Fertility in East Asia has fallen from 5.3 children per woman in the late 1960s to 1.6 now. In countries with the lowest marriage rates, the fertility rate is nearer 1.0.

4. Take a Stand Against Kraft’s Thoughtless Campaign, National Review Online

The company’s “Not For Every Relationship” contest, which runs until August 23, invites couples to post videos on YouTube on the subject “How Has Miracle Whip Affected Your Relationship?” Kraft will award the $25,000 grand prize to the winning couple, for them to use toward a marriage — or a divorce.

5.  Married and Cohabiting Couples: Pilot Data Released for Public Use, National Center for Marriage and Family Research

The data provide researchers with a unique opportunity to examine both married and cohabiting couple relationships from the perspectives of both spouses/partners. The data are composed of a nationally representative sample of United States married (752) and cohabiting (323) couples 18-64 years of age. . .  collected between July and October 2010.

6. Divorce Reform Could Save Billions in Government Aid, The Washington Times

The average split costs a couple $2,500. A new single-parent family with children can cost the government $20,000 to $30,000 a year. That’s $33 billion to $112 billion a year total in divorce-related social-service subsidies and lost revenue. . .

Even a “modest reduction” in the U.S. divorce rate likely would benefit 400,000 children and save taxpayers significant sums, wrote retired Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears and University of Minnesota professor William J. Doherty, proponents of a new “Second Chances” divorce reform.

7. The Best Child Protection Agency, The Family in America

The 2010 report to Congress containing the findings of the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4) confirm that married parents overwhelmingly represent the safest environment for America’s children, a haven where little ones are least likely to encounter physical, sexual, or emotional abuse and neglect. Conducted by the Administration for Children and Families, a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the study is based upon data collected in 2005–06 by 126 child-protective service agencies working in 122 representative counties, along with a “sentinel survey methodology” tapping the input of some 11,000 professionals who have contact with children in the course of their duties in judicial, law-enforcement, health, education, and social-service agencies.

 

For more, see this site.

 


Yes, We Can: A Response to Readers about Cohabitation

08.27.2011 2:25 PM

Thanks everyone for the responses to “A College Degree is Just a Piece of Paper?”

“nobody.really,” I agree that you’re right to shift the focus of the analogy from a “college degree” to a “college education.” I should have said “A College Education is Just a Piece of Paper?” The important point is that for certain kinds of jobs, we expect people to pursue higher education—and not just by reading things in their spare time or doing what they can to talk to learned people; we expect them to obtain higher education through an institution: an institution with its own norms (i.e. don’t plagiarize) and structure (i.e. professors teaching students). It is precisely those norms that enable a college education to be a transformative process. Through the books that one reads, the professors that one encounters, the conversations with students in class—they are intended to expand the student’s grasp of the world. As the student learns, his thinking undergoes a transformation and his skills are honed. This transformation and development of skills works so well because it works within the context of an institution. Again, for people who are pursuing particular kinds of jobs, we expect them to receive a particular kind of education—in an institution. And we expect them to do that—or at least this is the way it should work—not because of some arbitrary requirement, but because higher education is supposed to be a transformative process.

 Just as a college education is supposed to be a transformative process, so marriage is supposed to be a transformative relationship. For instance, the norm to “love and cherish” the other person “for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part” spurs (or is supposed to spur) the married couple to constantly get outside of himself or herself and look out for the good of the other person. Just as one could try to get the equivalent of a college education through informal means, so a couple could try to live the marital vow through their own resolve and effort. But missing will be the public vow, the law reminding the couple of their promise, and the social expectation that you fulfill that vow. And in the absence of those public norms and the community’s expectations, the couple is left to do it on their own.

 Of course, one will say “But those expectations are exactly what we need to change! We should create laws that recognize cohabiting couples and as a society we should expect more commitment from a cohabiting couple.” 

 My question to that retort is “How would that be different than marriage?” If many people agree (as Rosin does) that serial cohabitation is a problem, what is the alternative? And if the alternative is not marriage, how is that alternative different from marriage? That’s a question I’d like very much to hear a response to—so if anyone has an opinion, please do share.

 La Lubu, as you can see from my thoughts above, we disagree about whether marriage creates stability or not. I would agree with you that marriage doesn’t create stability if marriage meant “as long as our love shall last” (and no matter what vows are said, I’m pretty convinced that’s that’s what a lot of people believe—that marriage should last only as long as feelings of love last). But if marriage means to love and to cherish for better or worse, etc. etc.—then marriage does create stability. And my understanding of marriage is the latter—so I argue that marriage can create stability if a couple (of course it takes two!) allows the marriage vow to shape their love into a sturdy and enduring love.

 Of course, it needs to be always said that a married couple should not stay together in cases of abuse. And neither should we put a scarlet letter on anybody who is divorced—who can know what a person endured?

 But despite all the divorce and abuse and cheating that young poor and working class people see, as I noted in my earlier post, statistics show that the vast majority of them still want to get married.

 The million dollar question for me is “How can we ensure that if and when they do get married they are able to experience a loving, happy marriage?”

 La Lubu, you believe that the best one can do is to get one’s financial independence absolutely staked out—and then get married. And then, it seems, basically hope that their marriage works out. If it doesn’t, the person always has his or her own career and financial resources to fall back on.

I’m suggesting we can do better than that. I completely agree that one of the greatest tasks of our time is how to create broader economic opportunity. But let’s not just focus on economics. Let’s do both/and. Let’s think about economy and culture. 

I’m suggesting we can give women and men the option of a better marriage story—a story that says you can realize your dreams for lifelong love. Remember the marriage vow is not simply to stick with each other “for better or worse … until death do us part.” Rather, it is “to love and cherish” through sickness and health, through little and plenty. In other words, marriage rightly understood has a norm of marital friendship—and of lifelong marriage. The two are inseparable.

And because of the human person’s potential for greatness in the area of love, we can create a social expectation of lifelong, marital friendship, so that when our children get married they are entering something safe and good. In the name of the greatness of the human person, we must firmly reject any determinist assertion that people—or any particular group of people—are incapable of experiencing lifelong love. 

That’s why Rosin’s suggestion that poor and working class people getting married “just isn’t gonna happen” is so insulting—it’s insulting to the aspirations and dignity of the human person. They long for lifelong love, and they are capable of achieving it.


The M.Guy Tweet

08.26.2011 11:25 PM

Marriage Media
Week of August 8, 2011
Courtesy of Bill Coffin

 

1. Courtship and Marriage: A Fascinating Game for 2, 3, or 4 Players, Digital Collections: National Library of Australia

2. For Better . . . or Worse?, The Cridge Center for the Family

Just announced late last month, Statistics Canada will no longer collect and publish data on the annual marriage and divorce rates in Canada.  The decision, according to Statistics Canada, is a cost-cutting move which will save the embattled agency approximately $250, 000.00 per year.

But as several commentators have pointed out in media coverage of this story, the small savings gained are far outweighed by the loss of information and knowledge that will result from this decision.  Nora Spinks, the new CEO of the Vanier Institute for the Family, noted in an article in the Globe and Mail that “If we stop tracking marriage and divorce, it will become harder to be able to determine how our policies impact families, and how families impact social and economic development.”

3. A Tale of Two Fathers, Pew Research Center Publications

The role of fathers in the modern American family is changing in important and countervailing ways. Fathers who live with their children have become more intensely involved in their lives, spending more time with them and taking part in a greater variety of activities. However, the share of fathers who are residing with their children has fallen significantly in the past half century.

4. The Marginalization of Marriage in Middle America, The Brookings Institute

This policy brief reviews the deepening marginalization of marriage and the growing instability of family life among moderately-educated Americans: those who hold high school degrees but not four-year college degrees and who constitute 51 percent of the young adult population (aged twenty-five to thirty-four). Written jointly by two family scholars, one of them a conservative (W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project) and the other a liberal (Andrew J. Cherlin, professor at Johns Hopkins University), it is an attempt to find common ground in the often bitter and counterproductive debates about family policy.

5. New “Nearly-Wed Adventure” Helps Couples Prepare for Marriage, Nooga.com

According to the Marriage Counseling Blog, couples who have engaged in pre-marriage counseling have failure rates that are nearly half the national average.

“Pre-marriage counseling…helps couples to come to a unified decision when it comes to long-range goals, helps to open communication channels for honest discussions of all issues, and provides the couple with conflict resolution skills for when differences emerge – and they will,” according to the MCB website.

6. In Praise of Stepfamilies, HuffPost Parents

In the US and the UK, it’s estimated that there are more stepfamilies than nuclear families. In other developed countries like Australia and Canada, the figures are not as high but they are on the climb.

Most everything you read about stepfamilies has to do with evil stepmothers, obnoxious children, responsibility without control, resentful ex-spouses and lack of appreciation. But from my arguably unenviable position of stepmother, I’d like to talk about the better side of stepfamilies. Yes, when they work, they can work even better than “real” families.

7. Marriage: Teetering in America, The Charleston Gazette

Television comics joke that gays are the only Americans wanting to marry these days. The wisecrack contains a glint of truth, because wedlock has declined severely across the United States.

Marriage is shrinking especially among low-income, less-educated and minority Americans — those suffering worst from aftereffects of the Great Recession. The change threatens to transform America’s culture.

For more, see this site.


A College Degree is Just a Piece of Paper? A Response to Hanna Rosin

08.25.2011 7:07 PM

In his Huffington Post interview about the new Why Marriage Matters report, Brad Wilcox drew an interesting analogy:

Marriage is not just a piece of paper: it’s a social institution that is often transformative for men and women. The analogy here is that people, for instance, could contract with smart PhDs on an informal, private basis to get highly educated. And some would do just as well with that approach as people who would go to college. Nevertheless, in general, college provides people with a script and a set of norms and rituals and experience and gives them something more valuable.

Seems like a good analogy to me.

I wonder what Hanna Rosin and her Slate colleagues would say about that. In this Slate segment (skip to the 10 minute mark), they maintain that cohabitation is only a problem because it isn’t normal yet. Rosin suggests that “If we would do a better job of legitimizing cohabitation, that would be much better than constantly telling people to get married.” I wonder if  she also thinks that we should tell poor and working class Americans who aspire to a well-paying, white-collar job that they don’t need a college degree–it’s just a piece of paper after all. They can get the equivalent of a higher education through their own efforts.

Rosin concludes: ”You should focus on these serial cohabiters and what you can do to help them make their life better because that will be a much better thing than making everybody get married.” Behind assertions like this is a naive view that the poor and working classes cohabit merely because they’re the equivalent of European bohemians who are  done with marriage. As Rosin asserted, “People aren’t getting married in America. So stop telling them to–it’s just not gonna happen.”

That’s extremely insulting. As the 2010 State of Our Unions issue shows (see figure 7) 75 percent of least educated Americans and 76 percent of moderately educated Americans say that marriage is “very important” or “one of the most important things” to them. As my wife and I heard in our interviews with working class young people–and as we wrote about here–working class young people desperately want a happy marriage, but many fear the prospect of divorce and are determined to make absolutely certain that their partner is the “right person.” So are we really prepared to tell these Americans that marriage for them is “just not gonna happen?” (Incidentally, Rosin acknowledges, most poor and working class people are not in cohabiting, monogamous relationships–but they will if we make it a norm. So if we can make monogamous cohabitation a norm, why can’t we make marriage a norm? Seems like a case of convenient determinism to me.) 

Most poor and working class Americans are not cohabiting because they’re avant garde. They believe in marriage. So when we tell poor and working class Americans who aspire to marriage that they can get the goods of marriage without the institution, it’s like telling poor and working class Americans who aspire to higher education that they can get the goods of higher education without the institution.


What’s in a Name?

08.25.2011 12:49 PM

I have always loved turning.  In ballet, I always considered turning to be my thing, especially after I learned that much of my success in completing a turn lay not in my head or arms but in my feet.  A small adjustment in my feet placement and a genuine commitment to being properly grounded could make all the difference in completing a series of turns without throwing up in dizziness.

Returning to the dance studio, I have found one of my greatest challenges to lie in feeling grounded.  For example, our teacher reminded our class doing a pirouette combination last Monday, “Do not let your foot leave the floor, until it has left the floor.”  This is very hard.  Most of us do not think about when our foot connects to the floor or leaves the floor.  Just try it the next time you walk.  You will most likely have to slow down and think through how your heel, arch, ball, and toes work.  When I think about how my foot is grounded I am thankful that most of the time staying connected happens by default.  I don’t want to have to work to stay connected.

For the last few weeks I have been immersed in obituaries and computer databases, searching for the contact information for bereaved children and stepchildren of deceased Baby Boomers.  My mind is a jumble of addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses.  Although quite tedious at times, I’ve grown to feel a great deal of affection for the names themselves and the ways that our names connects us to parents, siblings, spouses and children.

Some observations:

You can always be tracked by your birth name.  I’ve found that men are easiest to find since their names do not typically shift with the covenant of marriage.  I’ve learned to search for women with their birth name, even if the obituary lists their married name and name of spouse.  The birth name always comes up and married names come up under “alternate” names along with common misspellings of your birth name.

Your biological siblings will always be connected to you.  By sharing a mother and father and a last name, you will rarely shake your brother or sister.  Despite distance and time, those biological siblings are like shadow selves, a virtual communion of saints who companion you.

Computer databases struggle to connect you to anyone NOT related to you by blood.  If you have been married for a while, the spouse will tend to be in your list of relatives, but if you are female and your last name has changed, the computer will hedge on how permanent that new name will be.  The married name is often found in the “alternate” or “also listed under” category.

Despite how much you may love your stepparent, stepson/stepdaughter, mom’s boyfriend’s child, traditional tracking systems will rarely connect you.  If you are not related by blood, you are unmoored, floating in a universe of your own.  These folks tend to have many names listed in the “possible roommates/associates” column.  I most often find stepchildren and stepparents listed as roommates or associates.  In other words, these family members are on equal footing with your college roommate.   And the system isn’t confident about connecting you, it’s always just “possible.”

Old age runs in families.  Not rocket science, but as I trace families, some are decimated with death and disease and some have countless members who are 100+.  For example, the Rosenburgers have 3 family members who are over 100.  If you are a Rosenburger, good for you, and if not, I would highly recommend marrying one on the chance that your children could have a long life.

Contrary to current rumor, AOL e-mail addresses are not dead.  However, they are only alive and well for people in their late 30’s and early 40’s.  People in this age range tend to have simple, straight-forward AOL addresses that consist of their name and aol.com.  No numbers, no cute phrases.  It is painfully obvious that everyone in this group picked up AOL CD’s in the mid- to late- 90’s and signed up for dial-up e-mail.  They were able to get their name as their e-mail address because, frankly, no one had e-mail yet. (Note to AOL: market to folks in their late 30’s and early 40’s.  They are either too lazy to get a new e-mail provider, nostalgic about keeping their first e-mail address, or deeply devoted to AOL.  Either way, there’s your market. Figure out how to make us happy.)

As a rule, people in their twenties should not be trusted to choose their own e-mail monikers.  Bad taste abounds.  Some sort of default name and numbering system should be instituted in order to save these young people from future embarrassment.  A guiding principle could be that you should not put anything in your e-mail address you would not want chiseled on your tombstone.  The word “pimp” is never cute nor appropriate, unless you are a famous rapper.  “Sweet” and “Bigz” and “MMMMBeer” should never be allowed.  When choosing, imagine your funeral: “We gather together today to remember SweetLousianaSpacePimp…” Just wrong.

And finally, in this day and age, there are many around us who we must consciously choose to stay connected.  Many families are not by default connected, a default that is a privilege.  Many children from in-tact families have built-in universes that hopefully buffer that young person from the harsh realities of life, create a financial, emotional, and spiritual safety net that enables confident risk-taking and personal development, and, at the end of the day, helps people find you.  People know where you are, your life has weight and permanence.

Last week I attended the open house at my childrens’ elementary school.  The hallway walls were covered with art work and I slowed to admire the drawings, many of which were pictures of families.  Many 8X10 pages were filled completely with parents, kids, animals, sunshine, and names.  Pictures where parents are bigger than the world and children are sheltered by parents and there is boisterous, raucous life spilling out everywhere.  But there were also many quiet pictures.  One such picture made me pause.  A lovely picture colored entirely in light red, not one smudge of white showed through the waxy red crayon.  In the middle of the page were two small figures, about the size of pennies, labeled “Me and my Mom.”  Even now, this picture demands my still attention and I hear my heart beat echo in my throat.  This child is connected, to a parent, to a loving school, to a lively neighborhood, but this child must work.  Work to stay connected in a big, red, world that seeks to diminish at every turn.

The world keeps on spinning and, whether by default or through hard work, being grounded can mean the difference between confident success and fearful dizziness.


Corporations vs. Children

08.24.2011 4:30 PM

Living in New York City, I usually think nothing of the magazine booths filled with racy magazines or billboards depicting practically pornographic women. That’s New York City, I shrug. But now, as an expectant father, I find myself suddenly asking “Do I want my son to see these ads when he is two?”

Along those lines, The New York Times yesterday posted a thoughtful commentary by a Canadian law professor, Joel Bakan, about how corporate interests threaten children’s welfare. Bakan cites a recent Kaiser Family Foundation study that found “that children spend more hours engaging with various electronic media — TV, games, videos and other online entertainments — than they spend in school.” Why is this troubling? Because as he notes “Much of what children watch involves violent, sexual imagery, and yet children’s media remain largely unregulated. Attempts to curb excesses — like California’s ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors — have been struck down by courts as free speech violations.”

He cites as well the increasing medication of children with potentially harmful drugs and the exposure of children to “increasing quantities of toxic chemicals”—both of which are driven by the Big Corporation.

He concludes thus:

“As Nelson Mandela has said, ‘there can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.’ By that measure, our current failure to provide stronger protection of children in the face of corporate-caused harm reveals a sickness in our societal soul.”

Our legal system’s hallowization of free speech and regular dismissal of concerns about the quality of our moral environment reminds me of what my old politics professor calls children in the contemporary West: “freedom’s orphans.” Whether we’re talking about commercial conception or abortion or food or TV programming or the pharmaceutical industry—isn’t it time we thought about freedom’s orphans?


Too Real for ‘Reality’?

08.24.2011 4:29 PM

There has been so much this past week about the “Real Housewives” franchise.  Since these popular city series have started, there have been complaints that these shows are staged, not possibly showing real life.  “Normal lives” don’t have that much daily drama, confrontation, mean girls ganging up together to pick on the vulnerable, or bickering between family members.  Maybe the fascination with these shows is that it really does show normal life issues, just magnified in a wealthy setting.  They provide the viewer an hour long escape from their own problems by letting them see that money doesn’t solve everything.

I must admit I am one of the million weekly viewers.  For those of us who have always wondered what it would be like to be “the fly on the wall,” this is our guilty pleasure.  I for one watch these groups of women with interest.  What I see are individuals reflecting problems that surround us all.  Some of the women are married in a stable home with well adjusted children, some are in the blended modern family with stepparents, step siblings and the shadow of the ex hovering in the background.  Some are not really housewives at all but single mothers handling the family problems of raising their children of divorce alone. There are also glimpses into unhappy marriages that seem to disintegrate before our eyes.  Certainly once the fancy trappings are removed these families and their problems can look very familiar.

Watching these people deal with real issues has proved very informative. Divorce seems to rear its ugly head over and over.   Paying attention to the effect it has on the children or how the past husbands are referred to, either with respect or diminished by subtle innuendo, provides many lessons to be learned.

One thing I personally miss is that grandmothers and grandfathers seem to be mostly removed from these family scenes.   The ones that have been included, I must admit, look like something that has come from central casting.   However, the hint of the presence of grandmothers seems to be one of the explanations for these wives being able to indulge in those long wine filled luncheons or trips to exotic and glamorous locations.

Since my little town is one of those that have been chosen to have its own set of wives, I have been disturbed by one thing: it doesn’t seem that any of the wives actually live there. I guess driving through each day or doing business their counts.   Over the years my town’s name or zip code being assigned to anything has developed a meaning of its own, no more real than when it had hillbillies attached to it.

One major difference between the lives we watch and the one we live is that in the viewers’ lives there are no storm warnings.  But in the “reality” shows filmed several months ahead of viewing, the news leaks out about what is to come.  The viewer watches intrigued by knowing what the effect of the actions they are seeing on the screen will actually be.  It is almost like the horror of watching the towers of the World Trade Center being struck and falling over and over again.

Now like watching a train speeding toward the inevitable wreck, we are being asked to deal with the reality of life. Tragedy is all too real.  Many of us have experienced it personally, whether intentionally or accidentally inflicted.  So if the real in “reality” has become a little too real, dealing with the tableau of life that is playing out before us might be an important lesson to be learned. Condolences to us all!


‘For 19 years now…’ and ‘Growing Up Without a Father’

08.24.2011 11:44 AM

At AnonymousUs.org, new stories from donor conceived persons have been posted. This one from a 31 year old mother of three who says about her sperm donor biological father:

…I want to see a picture of him. I want to know if I have his laugh. I want to know those kinds of things. I don’t want to be his best friend. I’m not looking for a new daddy. I just want to know where I come from. I think that is fair. Adopted children get to find out someday. Why don’t donor conceived children ever get to find out? It makes me sad to know that I will never know. For 19 years I have tried to come to terms with the fact that I will never know, but still, there is a hole that can never be filled.

And this one titled “Growing Up Without a Father“:

When I was young I would create elaborate stories of who my father was. My friends would ask me about him and I would say he died before I was born. There was a series of pictures in our hallway that had a sailboat tipping over and half a dozen men falling overboard. I chose the man with a full beard in a long yellow rain jacket. I said that was my father and the picture was of how he died.

When I was in kindergarten we had to create a poster of who we were. We were supposed to talk about our favorite color, sport, food, and our family. After I presented my project a kid asked me why I didn’t have a picture of my father on my poster. The teacher quickly changed the subject and I went back to my desk thinking for the first time ever, why don’t i have a father? That kid was the first of many questions to come. To this day people still ask about my dad. I tell them and say that I don’t have one. Most people get a confused look on their face and move on, but some go on to ask what had happened. I just say that he died, to save myself the breath and to satisfy their intrusive curiosity…