|
Saturday, February 22, 2003
SEX SLAVERY: In The Weekly Standard, Donna M. Hughes argues (article requires subscription) for stronger U.S. leadership, and a harder-line approach, to women and children around the world being trafficked into prostitution:...many of the world's humanitarian organizations have been willing to overlook and excuse the trade in women and children. The reason is as simple as it is tragic: The sex slaves are a high-risk group for HIV infection. Unfortunately, efforts to curb the global HIV/AIDS crisis have led to "nonjudgmental" condom distribution campaigns that ignore some of the world's worst crimes and human rights violations. Indeed, the HIV/AIDS prevention educators often make deals with perpetrators.
For instance, in Kerala State in India, where organized crime groups and corrupt political officials control the red light districts, a former police commissioner tells me that social workers must get permission from the pimps to give condoms to the women. In return, the social workers agree to ignore the presence of children and never to tell the women how to get out of prostitution. It should be obvious that if health educators can't gain access to women and children in brothels without making deals with pimps, the women and children are not free to leave, and are, in the truest sense of the word, enslaved.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 4:27 PM |Link
OOPS: "Actress Hawn penning memoir about acting, marriage to Kurt Russell," reports the Utusan (a Malaysian newspaper, I think). But Hawn and Russell aren't actually married.
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 4:02 PM |Link
WARNINGS about recent rises in sexually transmitted diseases in Britain and in Australia.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 3:25 PM |Link
NEW STUDY ON BRITISH CIVIL SOCIETY:Despite higher incomes, better health and much greater opportunity for women, Britons are increasingly depressed, unhappy in their relationships, and alienated from civic society, according to an exhaustive study to be published next week ... Fourteen per cent of men born in 1970 were as likely to admit to depression and anxiety in 2000, compared with only 7% of the 1958 group in 1991. For women the differences in the same years were almost as dramatic - 20% in 2000 and 12% in 1991 ... Of those born in 1970, 22% of men and 24% of women admitted to being unhappy with their first marriage in their early 30s, compared with just 3% of men and 2% of women of those born in 1958 at the same age. Single people too were similarly much more likely to be unhappy with their lot ... Of the 1946 group, 97% of fathers and 94% of mothers when in their 30s were living with their own children. Among the 1970 group, this was the case for just 63% of fathers and 59% of mothers ... "In the latter half of the 20th century the economic and social role of marriage and family gave ground to its emotional aspects," the study says. "This links with the rise of individualism, in which relationships are seen less in terms of social responsibilities and obligations and more in terms of personal resources and fulfilment. When competing demands of employment and domestic work put the relationship under further strain, break-up may seem the only solution."
This looks like a serious, important study -- it's apparently actually a summary of three big studies -- and I'm looking forward to reading it.
P.S. One quick thought. This report says that Brits are placing more emphasis than ever on personal happiness, yet report that they are becoming less happy. I'm reminded of what C.S. Lewis once called the principle of indirection, by which he means that some of the most important goods of life we don't get by going after them directly; we get them (if we get them at all) only as the result of going after something else. For example, if I want to be creative, I don't focus on how to be creative. I try to do some good work, and hope that creativity may be some part of it. I think that one possible implication of the findings of this study is that the principle of indirection applies to the pursuit of personal happiness.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 2:50 PM |Link
"'CAVE WOMEN' is an only-in-San Francisco experience -- a wildly creative, gutsy, fiercely feminist, politically correct, multicultural and occasionally raunchy look at feminism, war and the many horrors of the world."
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 2:36 PM |Link
ANN CRITTENDEN on a different type of homeland security.
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 12:35 PM |Link
Friday, February 21, 2003
BOOMERANG KIDS:Roughly one in 10 U.S. adults ages 25 to 34 are living with their parents, according to findings by the National Survey of Families and Households, as well as the U.S. Census Bureau. Current numbers could be higher: Dot-com jobs have disappeared, student debt has risen, and the cost of housing is up nearly 40 percent since 1997. And social trends indicate that the pattern will continue. "If I had to gaze into a crystal ball, I'd say it will increase," says Barbara Mitchell, a sociologist at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, and the leading researcher of boomerang kids. "It's not the 1950s anymore."
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 6:07 PM |Link
KATE HUDSON: ROBO IN PARADISE?As the child of divorced parents--her biological father is musician Bill Hudson of Hudson Brothers fame and her mother is actress Goldie Hawn--Hudson decided the best way to start her marriage was to concentrate on being a wife for a while. It was a bold move, given that her star was on the rise and in Hollywood it's best to strike while the iron is hot. Nevertheless, Hudson heeded the advice of her twice-divorced movie star mom to stay home and establish a relationship with her husband. Hudson says it was the smartest move she's ever made.
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 4:37 PM |Link
MICHELLE COTTLE has the best article on dating that I've read. In response to the Valentine's Day glut of articles on "new trends" in courtship, like internet personals and "speed dating," she asks:Am I supposed to believe that some guy who doesn't have more than eight minutes to spend with me at a Friday night speed-dating session is going to have the time and energy to be a decent boyfriend or husband? She's onto something.
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 3:16 PM |Link
SEX?: In the Times of London, reporter Abigail Rayner profiles Marshall Miller and Dorian Solot, who �are intent on resisting marriage.� As founders of the Alternatives to Marriage Project, Miller and Solot also work to portray unmarried couples as a new victim group, hurt by unfair discrimination. Rayner plays along, enjoying the opportunity to portray America as a priggy Puritan stronghold. She writes:This, of course, is what the issue is really about: sex. Really? Is concern about cohabitation rooted in stuffiness about sex? And is it reasonable to think that, because same-sex couples cannot legally wed, �a marriage certificate amounts to a stamp of approval from an antiquated, homophobic bigot�?Yikes. I don�t think so. Concern about rising levels of cohabitation is driven by the concern that the cultural status of marriage will be further weakened, introducing instability and removing fathers from the lives of children. At this point it is unclear if living together before marriage significantly increases the odds of divorce (once selection effects are taken into account). But when 40% of out-of-wedlock births occur to cohabiting couples, and more and more children live with a cohabiting parent, concern about the implications of cohabitation for children is justified. It is quite revealing that the Times article doesn�t think to ask what this all means for children. Indeed, according to Rayner, even if you care about family instability, cohabitation need not be of any concern. Why? It is difficult to assess whether unmarried relationships are any less committed than married ones. I know that Instapundit praised this blog as relatively �civil and intellectual,� but what an asinine, ignorant, laughably ludicrous statement. How is that �difficult� to measure? Solot says, �Plenty of unmarried relationships have outlasted many marriages,� but that means nothing. Plenty of smokers outlive many nonsmokers. Plenty of college dropouts make more money than many college graduates. So what?Pace Rayner, it�s actually quite easy to assess whether unmarried relationships tend to be more or less committed than married ones. First, you can ask people who are living together, Why aren�t you married? Research indicates that �I�m not ready to make that kind of commitment� is a more common response than �Because a marriage certificate amounts to a stamp of approval from an antiquated, homophobic bigot.� Second, you can observe how people act. Even with high divorce rates, marriage tends to be a much more stable arrangement than just shacking up. Most cohabitations are short-lived; the couples either break up or decide to tie the knot. But for Rayner, I suppose it�s just easier to frame the issue as one of enlightened rebels fighting prudish prejudice about sex.
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 1:56 PM |Link
WHEN MARRIAGE RAISES AIDS RATES: Many parents in sub-Saharan Africa hope their daughters will marry early, to protect them from contracting the AIDS virus. But a University of Chicago researcher, Shelley Clark, found that girls in Kenya and Zambia were more likely to contract AIDS if they were married.
�32.9 percent of married girls in Kisumu (Kenya) were HIV-positive, compared to 22.3 percent of unmarried girls. In Ndola (Zambia) the ratio was 27.3 percent to 16.5 percent. The likelihood of infection, therefore, was 48 percent higher for married girls in Kisumu and 65 percent higher in Ndola.
Clark�s explanation for the findings:
�These girls typically marry a man five to ten years older than themselves,� Clark says. Husbands often are older in part because it takes men years to save for the traditional �bride price� given to a girl�s family. �He will have had more sexual partners, including prior wives, since many of these marriages are polygamous,� Clark says. Given HIV�s low transmission rate (women have a 0.3 percent chance of infection for every act of unprotected sex with an infected partner, while men have a 0.1 percent chance), Clark says, the risk posed by frequent, unprotected intercourse�far more prevalent among married girls�is a more critical determinant in the likelihood of infection than is the number of one�s sexual partners. This helps to account for the unexpected finding that even single girls with multiple partners are at less risk than their married counterparts.
posted by Elizabeth Marquardt
at 12:04 PM |Link
Elizabeth Sherman blasts the Bush Administration on family leave.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 10:31 AM |Link
SINCE YOU ASKED:I am part of a new and growing demographic segment, the divorced, straight, middle-aged male with no desire to put my head again into the legal noose known as marriage. My mother is first-generation Italian and, of course, expects that everyone wants, needs and is supposed to be married. But like I told her, in her day people got married because they wanted sex; now they get married because they're tired of it. When asked if I ever want to get married again, my standard line is, ``What's in it for me?''
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 10:24 AM |Link
Thursday, February 20, 2003
�For Better or For Worse: Divorce Reconsidered,� by E. Mavis Hetherington and John Kelly, is being issued in paperback. The NYT briefly summarizes the paperback edition, saying the book is �a summary of nearly three decades of research involving some 1,400 families that finds ample cause for optimism in gauging the prospects for divorced couples and their children.�
Yet, as many of us pointed out when the book came out last year, there is little cause for optimism in Hetherington�s well-substantiated finding that children of divorce are two to two-and-a-half times more likely to develop severe, long term social and emotional problems when compared to their peers from intact families. This finding was presented as �good news� by Hetherington�s publisher, and, for some reason, many in the press accepted that interpretation.
posted by Elizabeth Marquardt
at 12:23 PM |Link
DIVORCE among major life stressors exacerbating post-traumatic stress syndrome after September 11th: Scientists at the New York Academy of Medicine studied 1,939 residents of the New York metropolitan area to assess post-traumatic stress disorder after Sept. 11, 2001. They found that �people who had experienced two stressful events since the Sept. 11 attack, like divorce or the death of a family member, were 47 times as likely to have persistent symptoms as those who had the symptoms several months earlier but had not faced such stress. Those who had gone through only one stressful event were 4.5 times as likely to have continuing symptoms.�
posted by Elizabeth Marquardt
at 12:22 PM |Link
"Since the economic reforms of the 1980s, however, China has been experiencing a sexual revolution, fueled by an opening to the outside world and the party's retreat from people's personal lives. Couples are no longer afraid to hold hands or kiss in public. Form-fitting fashions have replaced drab Mao suits. Prostitution and pornography, all but eradicated in the 1950s, are back in force. Several studies, some conducted by the party's Communist Youth League, show premarital sex on the rise, too. A 1992 survey found 25 percent of Chinese men and 20 percent of women had had sex before marriage. By the late 1990s, 70 percent to 80 percent of couples in Shanghai and Guangzhou reported during pre-marriage physical exams that they were sexually active. Even here in Chongqing, far from the more prosperous and progressive east coast, a study published last month found that 24 percent of men and 10 percent of women in the city's colleges have had sex, up from 11 percent and 8 percent six years ago."
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 10:01 AM |Link
"IVF baby has no father": A sad example of legally and socially deconstructing fatherhood, such that, in growing numbers of cases like this one, no one can figure out who the father is, and lots of children end up either with too many "fathers" or none at all.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 9:51 AM |Link
Wednesday, February 19, 2003
SELECTION EFFECTS: The Washington Times reports that a new study in Demography shows that men are more likely to cohabit than marry when they don't have stable employment. Just another example of how economic stability influences marital stability.
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 6:15 PM |Link
"Welfare reform, marriage tied": The bill introduced into the Senate is "similar to the House bill but raises the money for marriage promotion by $50 million to $350 million a year. The money, which can be used at the discretion of state governments, is designed to fund programs that teach marriage and relationship skills. The Talent bill also makes it easier to access the marriage-promotion money by requiring only a 25 percent match from states, rather than the 50 percent match in the House bill."
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 6:09 PM |Link
NEED TO LIBERALIZE DIVORCE LAWS: A staff writer for the Saudi Arab News writes about the horrors of domestic violence. That part is great. But this part is awful:It is certainly against Islam to beat a good wife. An erring wife should be warned first and advised. If that does not work, then the husband could give her a light beating, the purpose of that being to embarrass rather than inflict pain.A wife does have rights. She has the right to ask for divorce from her husband if he is unjust to her. ... Too often, �for the sake of the children,� or perhaps as a result of family pressure, she fails to exercise this right. Perhaps she "fails to exercise this right" because her husband would just beat her more? What good is the right to ask her husband to grant a divorce? What if he just says no?And it's ok to beat a "bad" wife, if the beating is light and meant to embarrass? Does the reporter think that this is some "moderate" position?
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 4:38 PM |Link
PICTURE PAT MOYNIHAN BREAKDANCING: Normally I can't stand race-baiting, whether it be from the left or the right. But sometimes, in its absurd forms, it can be kind of funny. For example, one Wade W. Nobles concludes his meandering, jargon-filled article on "Africanity" in the Nov. 1978 Journal of Marriage and the Family issue with this:An African Proverb: "He who can not dance will say the drum is bad."It seems clear that for too long, studies and research about black family life have been done by "people who could not dance." ... Oh, Snap! Ouch! Low blow!Nobles, currently a professor at San Francisco State University, has also been known to peddle "Afrocentric" pseudoscience about the biological superiority of black people. How did this guy get to publish in the Journal of Marriage and the Family? Full Disclosure: I don't mind stereotypes about rhythmically impaired white guys, because I met my girlfriend when one of her friends told her, "Girl, that white boy can dance!"
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 4:16 PM |Link
MORE 70s FUN: In another article from that same 1978 JMF issue, an author writes,Functionality of the home is positively related to the parents developing the skills necessary to manipulate the American economic system. By "manipulat[ing] the American economic system" I think she means "getting a job."
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 2:22 PM |Link
NOT A PARODY: From an article from the November 1978 issue of Journal of Marriage and the Family:It was hypothesized that different types of black single-parent families will differ considerably from each other. Ok, so let me get this straight: different types of families will . . . differ from each other? Um, eureka!, I suppose.
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 2:09 PM |Link
Hofstra University School of Law is hosting a conference on Marriage, Democracy, and Families, March 14-15.
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 1:19 PM |Link
EDITORIAL FROM THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR: "Our position is: A growing body of evidence confirms more emotional problems for children from single-parent families."
Letters to the editor here and here and here.
Here (start scrolling up) is our earlier blogging on the study in question.
The study, "Mortality, severe morbidity, and injury in children living with single parents in Sweden: a population-based study," is here (requires registration).
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 11:16 AM |Link
Tuesday, February 18, 2003
ONLY ONE SPOUSE NECESSARY: "Want a fast, inexpensive, foreign divorce? We can obtain one for you in the beautiful friendly country of Haiti, just a short flight from the U.S. While it is best if both parties are in agreement, it is not necessary."
I'm not making this up, and it seems to be on the level. They also say they can do a "proxy marriage" in which only one spouse needs to appear.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 6:11 PM |Link
From the indispensible Onion: "According to a study released Monday, women�once empowered primarily via the assertion of reproductive rights or workplace equality with men�are now empowered by virtually everything the typical woman does."
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 5:42 PM |Link
LOTS of cool research information about what might be called the biology of marriage.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 11:38 AM |Link
Monday, February 17, 2003
"A study released Monday by Duke University's Center For The American Family confirmed what many child-development experts have asserted for years: Children whose parents are divorced are twice as likely to compose bad poetry as those whose parents are married."
Gotcha? It's a gag, from The Onion.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 10:32 PM |Link
GOOD FOR YOU: "A British study has found people who had two children have a significantly lower risk of developing heart disease than those with one or no children." Apparently the study doesn't really say why. My guess is that getting outside yourself, giving of yourself to the next generation, gives you a pretty good reason for living and is therefore, among other things, good for your health. I think it was John Paul II, in another context, who said that the way we find ourselves is in the sincere gift of the self. Having a couple of kids is obviously not the only way to get there, but it's a pretty good way.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 10:20 PM |Link
CHILD-FAT (CONT.): "In Sweden and Norway, where advertising to young children is prohibited by law, childhood obesity rates are among the lowest in the Western world."
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 5:01 PM |Link
U.K. CUSTODY CASES: "Divorced or separated mothers who unreasonably persist in refusing to let their children see their fathers could lose the right to have the children live with them, a high court judge warned at the weekend." AND: "Most parents agree contact arrangements between themselves, but the numbers resorting to the courts have more than doubled in the past 10 years. Yet research shows that involving the courts exacerbates disputes over children."
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 4:54 PM |Link
"Child deaths in Africa could be cut by a quarter for as little as half a billion dollars a year, according to a leading malaria researcher. Professor Chris Curtis, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, says this relatively small sum of money would provide mosquito nets treated with insecticide to everyone in rural Africa, cutting malaria infection."
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 4:44 PM |Link
In recent weeks with my daughters I've watched five episodes of "Happily Ever After," HBO's animated series for children in which classic fairy tales are retold with decidedly modern, multicultural, and feminist twists. They are clever and well done, and my daughters love them. In watching them I was reminded of nothing so much as what Barbara Whitehead calls our society's current "Girl Project" -- a concerted, long-term, nearly society-wide effort to empower girls that is yielding many results, the majority of them quite positive. (I want my daughters to be strong and confident.)
But I have a son, too, and in watching these shows, I could not help but notice that many, possibly most, of the male characters are muscle-bound, privileged, lunkheads -- my daughters call them "jerks" -- whose main function in the stories is to be re-educated, mostly by women, particularly regarding the importance of doing housework, taking care of little children, and not acting like a lunkhead macho jerk. One guy, Rip Winkle, is so stupid and callous that his wife's "Fairy Godmentor," a great lady, has to give him a potion that puts him to sleep for 20 years. By contrast, almost all the famale characters are intelligent, attractive people whose main function in the stories is to learn to sing their own songs and not let other people -- for example, in one episode, a dumbhead father named "Scofflaw" -- keep them down. In another episode, the Tin Soldier is a brave ... little girl ... who has an old-fashioned toy (you remember them) called a "Jackie-in-the-Box." You get the idea. As I say, they are remarkably clever, and my daughters love them. But is that the only thing there is to say?
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 3:34 PM |Link
DEALING WITH INFIDELITY: "People in seemingly good marriages have affairs, too." Articles here and here.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 3:10 PM |Link
Sunday, February 16, 2003
FLORIDA SET TO CHANGE ITS LAW:The state won't defend a court challenge of an adoption law that requires some women who want to put their babies up for adoption to detail their sexual pasts in local newspapers ... Enacted in 2001, the law requires a birth mother to take out legal notices in a newspaper when she is unable to track down a birth father to notify him about adoption proceedings. She has to list her name, describe herself, name or describe the possible father, and list the date and city of conception ... Adoption attorneys blame the law for a 17 percent decrease in adoptions statewide for the first half of 2002 ... Charlotte Danciu, the Boca Raton attorney representing four women contesting the law, said she has never heard of a situation in which the state doesn't even attempt to ward off a constitutional challenge. "I've also never heard of such a ridiculous law in the history of the state of Florida," she said. I think Danciu puts it pretty well.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 6:18 PM |Link
HOUSE PASSES WELFARE REFORM BILL: "The House bill would devote $300 million to grants intended to help states foster healthy marriages ... "
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 6:04 PM |Link
CHILD-FAT (Cont.): "Several lifestyle factors have changed over the decades - parents are busier, there are more single-parent families, and the average New Zealand home has a smaller backyard. 'The whole lot of these conspire against incidental activity and [promote] a rise in the sedentary child,' she said. 'Some parents have become quite happy to let their TV babysit.'"
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 3:08 PM |Link
NEW NOVELS ABOUT HUSBANDS WHO DUMP WIVES, reviewed here and here.
P.S. New books on courting, marriage, motherhood, and work reviewed here.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 2:51 PM |Link
FOR THE SECOND TIME IN A MONTH, the Business Section of the NYTs features an article on the tax code's "marriage penalty" that completely misses the point! I try here to deconstruct last month's snide, highly misleading artice. Today's story is equally misinformed. It presents the notion of "bonuses" and "penalties" as if these categorizations were uncontested facts, then presents the Bush plan to reduce the marriage penalty as a response, without even saying -- I would guess that the reporter, Jan Rosen, doesn't even know -- that the Bush plan is conceptually based on a rejection, not an acceptance, of the "bonus/penalty" way of looking at the problem. Rosen then gets in even deeper over her head by suggesting that income splitting (which in fact is what the Bush plan seeks to approximate) worked well until more and more couples consisted of two earners -- a complete non-sequitor, since full income splitting would eliminate the marriage penalty for all couples, including all two-earner couples. The debate today largely concerns how various approaches to reducing or eliminating the marriage penalty would treat one-earner couples, a point that seems to have escaped Rosen's notice entirely.
Here is what happens to me. Often, when I read a story in the paper on a subject about which I feel that I know something, I marvel at how little the reporter seems to know about the topic. But when I read a story about which I know little or nothing, I assume that the reporter is well informed and basically telling the truth. That's a problem, isn't it? (Now I'm fretting about that story I just read about Indonesia ... )
One last piece of this rant. Now that newspapers run more and more stories each day -- the NYTs seems to sprout an entirely new section every couple of months -- isn't it likely that, on a per-story basis, journalistic quality is declining? Less fact-checking, less homework by the reporter? I think it's likely.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 1:47 PM |Link
|