|
Saturday, January 11, 2003
WHY THERE ARE NO GOOD MEN LEFT: Barbara Dafoe Whitehead answers questions about her new book (scroll down). Also, here's a report that discusses the "courtship system" today on college campuses.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 4:35 PM |Link
AUSSIES DEBATE DECLINING FERTILITY: About 27 percent of young (18-24) Australian men say that they plan to remain childless, compared to about 21 percent of young women. So the issue of declining fertility seems to involve men's attitudes, then, at least as much as women's. From The Age: "Research published last year by the Institute of Family Studies found that many young people cited love of personal freedom and pleasure as a big incentive to stay childless. One in five said their decision was at least in part based on the fact that they simply didn't like children. It seems parenthood has an image problem. So, of course, does marriage, with some citing the high divorce rate as reason not to commit to having children."
P.S. Perhaps relatedly, two-third of Australians say that they don't have enough money to afford everything they really need, despite the fact that Australians are three times richer today than they were in the 1950s.
P.P.S. Here's another take from Australia on the "men don't want children" issue.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 2:13 PM |Link
As an infuriating news appendix to the LeBlanc essay mentioned below, check out Colbert I. King's amazing column on child support enforcement and fatherhood promotion in Washington, D.C. Slate magazine recently called King "the best Washington Post columnist you've never heard of." Maybe -- King certainly nails this one.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 1:58 PM |Link
MARRIAGE PENALTY: The Washington Post reports: "The most popular components of Bush's proposal are the acceleration of an increased child tax credit and tax relief for married couples. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) has proposed accelerating the marriage relief, and Sen. Max Baucus (Mont.), the top Democrat on the Finance Committee, said there is also 'significant' support among moderate Democrats for that."
I'm still trying to learn whether the proposed plan to accelerate the reduction the marriage penalty does it the way I and other marriagae nuts view as the right way -- basically, by taxing the married couple as a single unit, thus permitting them fully to share their income for purposes of taxation -- or the wrong way, which would be to tax them as separate individuals while giving a break to the second earner. I think, based on what the Congress did in 2001, that the current proposal takes the former approach, which would be great. Does anybody out there know for sure?
P.S. Here's a document (and an article) outlining what to me is the best philosophical approach to this issue.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 1:33 PM |Link
"I WANT MY FATHER": From the New York Times Magazine, a realistic, poignant, well-written, and deeply depressing portrait of Toney, Lolli, and their children, and of the effects of street and prison culture on family relationships and the desire to love and be loved. From a forthcoming book, Random Family, by Adrian Nicole LeBlanc.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 1:11 PM |Link
Friday, January 10, 2003
Gay marriage is a difficult issue. While there are die-hard advocates on both sides, there seem to be a number of people on the fence, torn between offering tentative support or reluctant opposition (or maybe that�s just me).
Data from a new study on same-sex civil unions is worth pondering:Seventy-nine percent of married heterosexual men felt non-monogamy was not okay, compared with only 34 percent of gay men not in civil unions and 50 percent of gay men in civil unions. Over 82 percent of the women in the study, regardless of sexual orientation, said monogamy was important. If gay marriage is made legal, would the expectation and marital ideal of monogamy be weakened overall? Or would support for monogamy grow among gays? Or are gays too small of a group to significantly impact the institution of marriage overall�which, it must be said, the heterosexual majority has already weakened?
(Interestingly, the study�s co-author, Esther Rothblum, is forthright about her politics:Rothblum hopes the project�s results will be useful. �We have heard from policy makers and individuals who are working for civil union benefits in other states,� she said. �Our results will allow them to have some data to convince lawmakers and the general public.� Not surprisingly, Rothblum is also part of Stanford�s one-sided �Difficult Dialogues� panel.)
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 1:00 PM |Link
BOOK REVIEW ROUNDUP: In a positive review of Barbara Dafoe Whitehead's new book, Why There Are No Good Men Left, Meghan Cox Gurdon compares finding a husband to purchasing a home. In a bitterly negative review in Elle magazine, Rachel Combe tells readers, "Don�t you dare panic, and don�t your [sic] dare buy this book, because that would be falling right into their evil trap." (Combe also refers to Sylvia Ann Hewlett's Creating a Life as "a hateful book.") The New York Times gave it a lackluster review (here), while the Sacramento Bee largely lets Whitehead speak for herself (here).
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 10:41 AM |Link
MATERNAL EQUITY (CONT.): More on the "baby bonus" debate in Australia.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 10:37 AM |Link
GOOD DIVORCE: "That parties who decide to have children together should split for any reason is abhorrent to me," off-handedly remarked a Provincial Court judge in Canada recently. Angrily reprimanding the judge, The Globe and Mail argues in an editorial that divorce need not be so bad for children, so long as parents cooperate after the divorce. To me, the judge's comments, while too absolute, are considerably less naive than the "good divorce" happy-talk from the editorialists. The tired idea that what affects children is not divorce itself, but how we transact divorce, is not supported by the weight of current social science evidence and is mostly therefore, it seems to me, a way for adults in high-divorce societies to feel better about themselves.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 10:24 AM |Link
Thursday, January 09, 2003
Experiencing a surge in weapons-related violence (and also here), the British (and Aussies) debate gun regulation and the influence of family fragmentation and of rap music. This reminds me especially of the discussions youth violence in the U.S. (remember "super-predators"?) in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 8:27 PM |Link
EMINEM UPDATE: Evidently, Eminem and his ex-wife Kim have moved back into together and are trying (again) to reconcile. For Hailie's sake? (thanks to reader Diane Carr)
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 3:22 PM |Link
Nearly two-thirds of teens who have had sex wish they would have waited longer.
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 11:48 AM |Link
The National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership, better known as NPCL, has a webcast of their 2002 International Fatherhood Conference (not to be confused with the National Fatherhood Initiative's National Summit on Fatherhood). In his keynote address, Columbia Professor Ron Mincy outlines some potential TANF reforms and says, "The marriage stuff is not ridiculous given where the trends are going."
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 10:43 AM |Link
"WHY CAN'T THE ENGLISH LEARN TO SPEAK?": A British educator speculates on the causes of "the daily grunt of families who don't know how to chat."
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 10:35 AM |Link
Wednesday, January 08, 2003
ANDREW SULLIVAN is right that involved fatherhood is important for gay teens (fourth item). Moreover, I�d argue that widespread fatherlessness contributes to some of the more virulent strands of anti-gay hatred. At some point in growing up, every boy asks himself, consciously or not, �What does it mean to be a man?� Where there are no involved fathers, and few positive male role models of any kind, boys may be more likely to think that being a man means being violent, degrading to women, and, above all, not being �soft.� In this culture of perverted hypermasculinity, being gay is the ultimate in effeminacy.
Again, gangsta rap culture is a perfect example. The movie �8 Mile� is about a group of young men from poverty-stricken Detroit. Their lives seem to revolve around rap �battles,� in which two guys face off and fling insults at each other to a beat. The more clever and cruel the insult, the better. By far, the most common putdown is �faggot.�
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 3:31 PM |Link
BAD RAP? Criticizing an official from the Blair government who blamed some recent incidents of youth violence in part on the influence of rap lyrics, Richard Morrison writes: If young men turn to guns and drugs, why? It surely isn�t simply because guns and drugs are ever more available, or that the kids have �picked up bad habits� from songs or films. These things are symptoms of malaise, not causes. For the latter, one must delve into problems that are impervious to quick fixes cobbled together at �summits�.
Problems, for instance, like the collapse of the family and the disappearance of positive male role-models from inner-city life. Most boys who end up in young-offenders institutions come from families without a father or even a father-figure. Most will never encounter a male teacher at primary school. They will fall hopelessly behind in the classroom because, these days, that�s what inner-city boys are expected to do. By the time they are 14, thousands will have dropped out of education, to the unspoken relief of teachers under huge pressure to improve their school�s GCSE results.
Nor will those dropouts come under the guiding influence of a church youth club, a scout troop or a cadet corp, because such �old-fashioned� institutions have largely been ridiculed out of modern life. They will have no mentors to teach them the difference between right and wrong, no prospects, no skills, no �stake in society�, no hope.
So they kick around the streets and the arcades, get sucked into a gang (at first as much for self-preservation as for kicks), slip casually into petty crime � mobiles and bikes, stolen and then traded for drugs � and then, imperceptibly, into the fullblown gun-totin� gangsta image which, they truly believe, is the only way to gain �respect�, status and wealth in their circumstances.
... Many will be dead long before their grandparents. In Tony Blair�s ostensibly egalitarian Britain, a white middle-class girl can expect to live 15 or 20 years longer than a black working-class boy. Much of that discrepancy is explained by the number of young black men who die violently. To all of this, most of us (including government ministers) are content to turn a blind eye for most of the time, until some horrible incident � the Aston shootings, the murder of Damilola Taylor, the Bradford riots � reminds us that there is something rotten at the heart of what we erroneously call modern civilisation. It�s stupendously hypocritical. Here is another take on the same issue. Here is Tom Sylvester's piece on Eminem.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 10:13 AM |Link
Marriage education and marriage mentoring now expanding in Britain (BBC news story, requires RealPlayer).
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 9:53 AM |Link
Tuesday, January 07, 2003
Uh oh. If I have to give a thanks to Diane Sollee every time I blog about something I first saw in her SmartMarriages e-newsletter, people will realize that, well, a lot of the articles I blog about are things I first saw in her SmartMarriages e-newsletter.
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 8:07 PM |Link
MARRIAGE EDUCATION for engaged couples now required in Taiwan. (Thanks to Diane Sollee.)
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 7:10 PM |Link
What Florida is doing to strengthen marriages.
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 7:00 PM |Link
Nick Eberstadt on the end of the population explosion: The natural growth of population in the more developed countries has essentially ceased. The overall increase in population for 2000 in these nations is estimated at 3.3 million people, or less than 0.3 percent. Two thirds of that increase, however, is due to immigration; the total "natural increase" amounts to just over 1 million. Over the coming quarter century, in the U.S. Census Bureau's projections, natural increase adds only about 7 million people to the total population of the more developed countries. And after the year 2017, deaths exceed births more or less indefinitely. Once that happens, only immigration on a scale larger than any in the recent past can forestall population decline. (The specter of population decline in more developed countries looms even larger if the United States, with its relatively high fertility level and relatively robust inflows of immigrants, is taken out of the picture. Excluding the United States, total deaths already exceed total births by almost half a million a year.) The whole article is worth reading and has many implications, obviously, for the family and for family policy.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 6:58 PM |Link
HEADLINES: The Washington Times, unsuprisingly, gave a much rosier spin than did CBS News to the announcement that HHS would be giving grants to organizations that promote marriage ("HHS grants promote support of children, healthy marriages" vs. "Your tax dollars promoting marriage," respectively).
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 6:54 PM |Link
CORRECTION: I said below that President Bush is proposing to increase the child care (or depedent care) tax credit, but it seems I was wrong. Apparently he's proposing instead to raise the basic child tax credit, which in my view is a good idea. Sorry. (Thanks to Brad Wilcox.)
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 4:42 PM |Link
NOT DIVORCE COURT: A family court judge from Minnesota writes movingly of the problems of "DC."
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 4:07 PM |Link
If you don't want to register with the WSJ, James Q. Wilson's article is also available here. His main thesis: In my judgment, [families] are weak in large measure because of broad, long-lasting cultural changes in Western society, changes that for blacks were made even worse by the legacy of slavery. Westerners have sought personal emancipation, at first from kings and bishops, then from social pressures and customary expectations, and now from familial obligations. Enslaved blacks were never allowed to form families at all so that, when emancipation finally came, there was no lasting tradition of family life that could support newly freed people who were cast out into a still-segregated society.
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 3:41 PM |Link
James Q. Wilson in today's Wall Street Journal on why fathers matter. If you are like me, and mistrust ideological categories like "conservative" and "liberal," just focus on what he has to say about what fathers do.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 12:23 PM |Link
IN AUSTRALIA, the Howard government recently implemented a "baby bonus" policy in which new mothers choosing to stay at home with children for five years are eligible for tax breaks of $2,500 per year for the five years. The opposition Labor Party, citing new research, charges that the plan favors more affluent mothers. Some say that universal paid maternity leave -- an idea also being considered by the Howard goverment -- would be a better approach. It's an interesting debate -- and one that we in the U.S. seem conspicuously to be avoiding.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 12:09 PM |Link
HOW MANY SOCIOLOGISTS DOES IT TAKE...?: This is not a parody. From a journal article entitled, "Reconceptualizing Marital Status as a Continuum of Social Attachment": Even adjusting for social attachments, social support, and economic support, widowhood remains significant [as a predictor of depression]. Something other than lack of social and economic support increases the depression levels of widows. Perhaps it is the grief of loss.
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 11:51 AM |Link
I WAS WRONG: Perhaps those Ohio State students (scroll up) who got married for football tickets weren�t being so silly after all. I mean, a double-overtime victory!
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 11:25 AM |Link
"Florida can make marriage a better institution."
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 9:53 AM |Link
"How to be happily unmarried."
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 9:44 AM |Link
Monday, January 06, 2003
CARELESS: The details are not yet available, but it appears that President Bush tomorrow will propose increasing the child care tax credit from $600 to $1,000. This is an old idea. President Bush has proposed it before, and so did Bill Clinton when he was president. It doesn't cost much in the federal scheme of things, and it sounds like something that helps families. But it's also a bad idea. Basically, it provides -- in this case, expands -- a benefit that is available only to (mostly upper-income, two-earner) families who use commercial child care. At-home parents (aren't they doing "child care"?) would get nothing (except another tax to pay), nor would millions of other families with children who use informal child care, work at home, use tag-team shifts, etc. President Clinton's 1999 proposal, which would have included a new $500 credit for at-home parents, while still blatantly unfair, was significantly better than what President Bush now seems poised to propose.
Amazingly for a guy who speaks so often about the importance of the family, President Bush just can't seem to get this issue right. Not only does he propose making a bad policy worse in the area of child care, he did the same thing during the campaign regarding the marriage penalty.
Here's a 1999 panel discussion on this issue.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 9:05 PM |Link
DEFINING DEVIANCY DOWN (cont): In his �Cloning: No Big Whoop!� op-ed, Boffey also argues there is no need to worry about eugenic-type demands, because �sperm banks with seed from famous and accomplished men have existed for some time with no sign of a mass rush to use them.� But just because most people prefer to make babies the old-fashioned way doesn�t mean that sperm banks should get a free pass. Indeed, they raise profound questions about markets and morals (also see here).
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 3:07 PM |Link
DEFINING DEVIANCY DOWN: In a signed editorial, Philip M. Boffey of the New York Times says that we should worry about reproductive cloning, but not too much, and that we should be "preparing ourselves mentally" for it anyway. What a curious argument! Boffey points out that reproductive cloning could play havoc with family relationships, primarily by turning children into something quite close to commodities. But not to worry (too much): "Nor is it clear that families with a cloned child would face more confusing relationships than already exist in today's divorced, blended and extended families." Well, what a relief!
Here is a textbook example of what Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously called "defining deviancy down," or lowering our expectation of what is normative by changing the point of comparison. Don't compare the life of a cloned child to the lives of children in intact families. Instead -- here we go, defining it down -- compare a cloned child to the lives of children in fragmented families. Then it's not so bad!
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 1:52 PM |Link
From a long, fascinating article on college football (�Football is a Sucker�s Game," The New York Times Magazine): Of the 105 players on U.S.F.'s football team -- most of them between 18 and 23 years old -- about 30 are fathers and many have produced multiple children. ''I would say there's a total of 60 children from this team, and that's a conservative estimate,'' said LaBaw. ''It's amazing how quickly it occurs, usually in the first year. Or they come to school already fathers.''
What this means is that the recipients of Lee Roy Selmon's scholarship program for needy young men are recreating the need that many of them came from -- children living in poverty, without fathers at home. Also: I asked Leavitt [the head coach] if his long football hours left him much time with his 7-year-old daughter. ''Quality time,'' he said, then repeated it as if trying to convince himself. ''Quality time. It's got to be quality time.''
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 10:44 AM |Link
Sunday, January 05, 2003
Some mothers decide to stay home when the children are -- teenagers.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 9:45 PM |Link
|