 |
|
Saturday, March 08, 2003
"WHY NOT USE IT?": "But she and her new partner desperately wanted a son. So when she was given the option of choosing a male embryo during her IVF treatment, she jumped at the chance. The $2800 non-refundable fee, on top of the standard IVF costs, did not faze her. "I already had three daughters, and my partner really wanted a boy," she said. "Some people thought I cheated because I chose the sex. They were very negative. But I thought, if the technology is there, why not use it?"OK, only a marriage buff, among all the implications of this story, picks out this one little thing -- "my partner" -- to fret about. So shoot me. "There is a new weapon in the fight against drug rape. Along with their lipstick, mobile phones and money, Sydney women can now pack business card-sized spiked-drink detector kits in their handbags." Interesting times we live in. IS HAVING A BABY IN MY 20s OK?: "Maybe we need to widen the window and say that as long as you are in a stable relationship, and are happy to do so, any time in the 20s is a desirable time to start a family." Hmm.... A "stable relationship"? NYTs REVIEW OF "A POTENT SPELL: MOTHER LOVE AND THE POWER OF FEAR": "Mothers are emphatically burden bearers,'' a member of the progressive-spirited National Congress of Mothers announced at the turn of the 20th century. ''Mother love walks hand in hand with anxiety and care. This companionship between mother love and apprehension begins at the cradle, and lingers at the grave of the offspring, always solicitous and anxious.'' Her tribute to haunted maternity sounds quaint -- until you read Janna Malamud Smith's meditation on the persistent, and ever potent, bond between ''mother love and the power of fear.''I couldn't tell from the review exactly what the book's argument is, but it seems likely to contribute to what appears to me to be a growing debate on maternal feminism and maternal equity. I think that Ann Hurlbert, who wrote the review, is also working on a major magazine piece on the Bush Administration's efforts to promote marriage; so stay tuned. A WOMEN'S MOVEMENT IN JAKARTA: Among the various themes planned to mark International Women's Day today is the comparatively unique issue of "consumerism", which is considered to be one of the main causes of the rampant corruption in this country. The organizers, including the Voice of Caring Women (Suara Ibu Peduli, or SIP) and Voice of Women's Hearts (Suara Hati Ibu) say that the theme came out of discussions among various women leaders across Greater Jakarta ... The following questions were raised: What is the root of corruption, of the rat race to consume much more than one needs, and of the economic difficulties amid the flashy cars on Jakarta's roads? The women concluded that corruption was at the heart of this country's economic woes. And consumerism -- which they defined as the need to meet an insatiable feeling of inflated needs -- must be one of those root causes, the women concluded. And given that women can be "agents of change", says SIP chairperson Mega Priyanti, they decided to use March 8 to launch a campaign to spread awareness against consumerism as defined above.Here's an opinion piece from the Jakarta Post on International Women's Day. Here's another essay, "In a Man's World," from Pakistan. And here's another, also from Pakistan. HERE IT IS AGAIN: Another letter to the editor (scroll down), this time in Dallas, making the "look over there" defense of same sex-marriage: "Rather than pass the Defense of Marriage Act, it seems to me that the institution of marriage would be better served by calling the Fox network and its advertisers to complain about shows such as Married by America." I noticed the same argument here. Friday, March 07, 2003
MORE MARRIAGE RESEARCH: OK, Tom can glean meaning (see below) from watching last season's Friends finale. I was also doing research last night, watching Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, a 1974 movie directed by Martin Scorcese. Lots of nice touches, but the movie seemed so 1970s in its blase, matter-of-fact, stuff-just-happens treatment of divorce. Here's how Alice's love interest explains how his wife left him, taking their two young children with her: I wanted this. She wanted that. She said she was leaving. I held the door open for her.I think that movies today may be cynical or fatalistic, but are less likely to be quite this casual, about the meaning and consequences of divorce. NORMALIZING FAMILY FRAGMENTATION?: Last season�s Friends finale made a splash because Rachel finally had her much-hyped out-of-wedlock birth. The media drew comparisons to Murphy Brown and Dan Quayle said the show reflected progress because, this time around, at least the unwed father was involved. I didn�t watch the episode, but I thought, �Great, another hip show that makes childbearing outside of marriage seem just fine.� My initial impression was a bit off, though. I saw the episode last night and there were a few subtle pro-marriage messages. Friends kept asking Ross, the father, why he wasn�t �with� Rachel. Ross�s mother applied even more pressure by giving him an old family engagement ring to propose with and saying, "A child should have a family." The thrice-divorced Ross finally admitted to a friend that he didn�t want to marry Rachel because he feared they would break up yet again, and that such a split would be awful for their child. On Rachel�s end, a woman told her she "admired" Rachel for raising her baby alone. Rachel replied that she wouldn�t be alone, because Ross would help. The woman countered, "Oh, sure. Now. But what happens when he meets somebody else and gets married? ... They all say they're gonna be there until they start their real family.� Rachel then worries about raising her new baby alone. True, in a later episode Rachel said, "I'm not looking for a husband." But my sense is that Friends fans�and not just marriage buffs�want to see Ross give Rachel a ring. INTERNET PORN (CONT.): "A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the Child Online Protection Act restricted free speech by barring Web page operators from posting information inappropriate for minors unless they limited the site to adults. The ruling upheld an injunction blocking the government from enforcing the law." ON E.J. DIONNE'S DEFENSE OF AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS (see below): Dionne has it right, that the problem is that children�s school schedules are out of sync with adult work schedules. After-school programs are one solution, and I support the use of government funds for them. But after-school programs � which essentially lengthen the child�s school day to match the adult�s work day � come at the problem from only one direction. When I was growing up as the child of divorced parents, I spent a lot of time in after-school programs and in day-long summer programs sponsored by school districts. I hated them. I was a bookish kid, somewhat introverted, intimidated by competitive sports, alienated by fluorescent-lit gymnasiums. At the end of a school day I wanted to be at home, not in yet another series of programmed activities directed by adults I didn�t know. My parents heard my complaints and, by the time I was eleven or twelve, I was at home � alone � for those long afternoons and summer days. And yes, I got into the usual trouble that unsupervised kids get into. After-school programs help to prevent kids from getting into trouble, but in addition we need more kids being raised by married parents (who have more flexibility than single parents), as well as better job opportunities for single and married parents � flexible hours, working from home, good part-time jobs, etc. � so that at least one parent has the chance to be with their child during the 3 to 6 gap. In a child�s world, that three hours a day is huge. In an adults� world, it�s only fifteen hours a week. Surely we can figure this out. MATERNAL EQUITY (CONT.): The Aussie debate continues to heat up: "British sociologist Catherine Hakim and her Australian acolytes try to make a big feminist argument by stating the obvious: that some women prefer to be at home with children, some are career-focused and some - the vast majority - want a balance of the two. Allowing for a bit more conditioning, it's likely nearly as many men would want the same." A LETTER TO THE EDITOR: "On TV, we've had Married by America, Joe Millionaire, The Bachelor (plus The Bachelorette) and, of course, Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire? Apparently, though, the biggest threat to the sanctity of marriage is the fact that gays want to do it." This guy makes a fair point -- singling out gay marriage as the big threat to marriage as an institution may ring a bit hollow in an era in which the hetero majority are doing a fine job, thank you, of demeaning and degrading marriage in all kinds of ways. In some recent correspondence, Andrew Sullivan, a leading proponent of same-sex marriage, made this same point. At the same time, this argument is also a clear example of what Daniel Patrick Moynihan calls defining deviancy down. If you debase the standard of judgement -- now, our standard for taking marriage seriously is what happens on reality TV? -- then whatever you are proposing doesn't look so bad. Sorry, fellas, no dice. In the final analysis, the only right way to win this argument is on the merits, not by saying, "look over there, that's even worse." The Marion Star, a small Ohio newspaper, is running a series of profiles on randomly chosen individuals. The Editor explains, �Their stories have nothing to do with the news, but everything to do with how we live our lives.� Jessie Browning is 29-year-old waitress. She's a single mom. She �says she feels much older� than 29, works hard to provide for her son, feels overburdened, and hopes to get a better job and perhaps buy a house someday. She plays many roles, including those of mom, college student, and breadwinner. The Star adds, Browning says she has another role to play for Zach, that of father. "I play football with him. We go sledding, go bowling," she says�.It�s true that dads tend to play with their kids more than moms, so I understand what she means. (Still, in 2003, can�t moms play football as moms?) But as David Blankenhorn says, �The best mom in the world cannot be a father.� When many Americans think that mothers can make up for father absence through stereotypically masculine behavior, the cultural status of fatherhood is weak. Also: Browning has some words of advice to young, unwed mothers who plan on having a baby: make sure you're financially stable before venturing into mother or fatherhood.Putting aside the perplexing questions that this sentence begs (Haven�t �young, unwed mothers� already ventured into motherhood? How can mothers�young or old, married or not�venture into fatherhood?), it�s advice of this sort that makes a marriage buff sad. It reminds me of when certain teen pregnancy programs tell girls to wait until they are �older� before having a baby. Surely, for a young single woman contemplating having a baby, there is a better answer than �wait until you�re financially stable.� One better answer would be, "wait until you are married." More money helps, but no amount of money is Dad. To me, the point is not to stigmatize Jessie Browning or any other single mother. She seems to be a devoted parent and gets little help from her son�s deadbeat dad who lives in Tennessee. But as Browning repeatedly says, �It�s difficult being a single mother.� That means that our policies need to help single moms, but it also means that our society should strengthen the connection between marriage and child bearing. More policy supports help, but no program is Dad. BUY ME LOVE?: Lord (Richard) Layard, the LSE's director of the centre for economic performance, has this week delivered three startling lectures which question the supremacy of economics. It doesn't work. Economies grow, GDP swells, but once above abject poverty, it makes no difference to citizens' well-being ... there is a growing new scientific movement studying happiness. Daniel Kahneman, the winner of this year's Nobel Prize for economics - yes, economics - is best known for his work on hedonic psychology. Suddenly the big question is being asked by those who spent their lives on making and measuring money: what's it all for? ... The seven key factors now scientifically established to affect happiness most are: mental health, satisfying and secure work, a secure and loving private life, a safe community, freedom and moral values ... [Layard] is Old Testament stern about the culture of endlessly pursuing personal pleasure, regardless of the needs of others. He refers nostalgically to wartime, when citizens accepted a drop in personal gratification for common purpose, something so often praised by conservatives and yet resisted with every fibre in peacetime. Layard is a necessary guru for our times, with a new moral language for some good old sentiments ... Richard Layard is currently writing a book on economics and happiness. His lectures can be found at cep.lse.ac.uk. FROM INDIA: "Decades of sex determination tests followed by female foeticide have finally caught up with Punjab and Haryana," said a sociologist in the shared state capital Chandigarh." What a terrible trend: Like several of his cousins from the macho Ramdas agricultural belt of Amritsar district, the 28-year-old Sikh farmer gladly paid around Rs10,000 (�280) as the "bride price" to his future in-laws in a poor village in Bihar state and brought home his "prize" ... "Punjab's sex ratios left me no alternative but to shop for a bride from wherever I could," Singh said. "At this rate there will be no Punjabi brides left for my sons," he added ... In neighbouring Haryana state, the marriage market is equally dismal, with just 861 females for every 1,000 males compared with Punjab's 793 girls for 1,000 boys ... Haryana's vagrant bachelors spend their time playing cards, drinking, harassing local females and making a nuisance of themselves. "They have become a social menace," Singh said. Thursday, March 06, 2003
BLOCKING INTERENT PORN (CONT.): I find it hard to follow all the arguments, but Slate has a (skeptical) piece on current efforts in the U.S. to keep Internet porn away from children. IF I WAS LESS BUSY, I COULD GET MORE WORK DONE: "A new study shows that it is the better-off who complain about having no time. And it asks - provocatively - whether these households deserve sympathy. The study, Stressed Out on Four Continents, will be presented next week at a conference hosted by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. It investigates the realities of time stress in Australia, Germany, South Korea and the United States, and finds a remarkably similar pattern: the more money you have the more rushed you feel. And that holds true regardless of the hours you work." MATERNAL EQUITY (CONT.) Anne Summers unleashes an astonishingly vituperative attack on the Howard goverment. It's mostly just an accusation of bad faith. And I'm sure that there will be more to come. This debate is just getting started. I'm not saying that the critics don't have valid points to make, it's just that so far, they are mostly substituting anger for analysis. This will give you a sense of the tone of Summers' piece in The Age today: Howard is a self-confessed social conservative who has a "white picket fence" view of society and history. Women belong in the home, he believes. His own wife, Janette, has not been employed outside the home since they were married. Once installed in Sydney's Kirribilli House, he immediately began his assault on the employment opportunities of women. FRAGILE FAMILIES RESEARCH: The latest Fragile Families Research Brief is on �Union Formation and Dissolution in Fragile Families� (�fragile families� refer to unwed parents and their children; the brief is not yet online). The researchers report, �Although most unmarried parents say shortly after their baby�s birth that they plan to marry the other biological parent, only nine percent actually do so by the time their child is one year old.� Also, one year later, 42 percent of the parents no longer romantically involved at all. Once again, I think rap lyrics explain the �fragile family� situation as well as sociologists. In the song �Ms. Jackson,� Outkast tries to explain to a baby�s mama�s mama (i.e., maternal grandmother) that he�s sorry that things didn�t work out between him and her daughter, but that he intends to be an involved father: King meets queen, then the puppy love thing,The song hits it all: a romantic relationship with high hopes for a married, middle-class future (the house with the tire swing), how parental conflict (�baby mama drama�) inhibits father involvement, how many unmarried dads say they want to stay involved, and so on. Without marriage, however, research shows that most of these fathers will not stay as involved as they initially intended. Even if they make it to their child�s first day of school, many won�t stick around for graduation. So, given that, as the researchers note, �stable marriages have been linked to a range of positive outcomes for both adults and children,� what leads to more marriage? Not surprisingly, low-conflict, emotionally-supportive relationships lead to more stability and marriage than those marked by violence, high conflict, or drug abuse. Women�s education and men�s employment had positive associations with stable union formation. �Also,� the brief states, �men�s wages are important for marriage: an increase of one dollar per hour in wages increases the odds of moving into marriage by five percent.� What does this mean for policy? By running statistical simulations, the researchers suggest that raising male employment rates and wages could create a small rise in marriage rates. Similarly, if policy could somehow help couples improve their relationships (through, say, �healthy marriage initiatives�) marriage rates might also rise a few percentage points. Still, even if all that could happen�which is a big if�the overall impact would be small, with 15 percent of unmarried parents getting married instead of only 10 percent. While this may seem discouraging, it should spur the marriage movement to step back and look at the big picture. Policy is one thing that we can change, and we should change it. But strategies to reduce unwed childbearing and father absence must not begin and end with public policy. Cultural renewal is key. THE AUSSIE INTERNET PORN DEBATE (CONT.): But how do you expect 16 and 17-year-old boys to rein in their curiosity when the media tantalises them daily with a barrage of sexual content? If commuter dads get to perve at a billboard on the West Gate Freeway with the legend "Get horny tonight" over a nude copulating couple, what's the big deal if their sons browse through www.gethorny.com? Our society has lost its capacity for idealising and defending sexual restraint. From a parent's point of view, even worse than the ready availability of pornography is the sniggering and innuendo that fill cool radio stations such as JJJ. When was the last time you read a serious defence of virginity or modesty in a newspaper? Words like chastity, abstinence or modesty can hardly be uttered without sounding quaint, comic or prudish. Who's responsible for screwing up our kids' emotional future? Don't point the finger at the pornographers. Point it at the politicians, journalists and advertisers who won't deal with the problem because deep down they don't believe it's wrong. HERE'S THAT MARRIAGE QUIZ: Both partners complete the quiz. On each question, give yourself a 1 (strongly agree), 2, 3, 4, or 5 (strongly disagree). In general, low scores are "good." 1. I have really high expectations of this relationship 2. We spend enough time together and enough time separately 3. My partner makes an effort to understand my viewpoint, even if we disagree 4. The marriage vows have real meaning for me 5. Our views of life are broadly similar 6. My family and friends think that my partner is right for me 7. There's nothing major that I'd like to change about my partner 8. I'm confident of avoiding the mistakes I've made in previous relationships 9. We're agreed on whether or not we want children 10. I often think lovingly about my partner when we're apart 11. We're not under pressure to marry from our families 12. I'm happy with the frequency and variety in our sex life 13. My partner often gives our relationship priority over other demands 14. Of all the relationships I've had, this is the best 15. I'm confident that my partner cares about me as much as I care about him/her 16. I don't have any worries about the way my partner handles money 17. I'm content with the way my partner shows their feelings towards me 18. I have no serious misgivings about marrying my partner 19. I respect my partner a great deal and know I can trust him/her completely 20. We're good at sorting out our differences fairly 21. It will be easy to stay faithful to my partner 22. We have no serious conflicts which feel like a threat to our future 23. We recognise the importance of talking about our feelings, and can do so openly 24. We have the balance between work and the rest of life about right 25. We'll cope well together with any crisis life throws at us FROM BRITAIN: "A do-it-yourself quiz to test a marriage's chances of surviving is being published today by Relate, the marriage guidance service." DOMESTIC VIOLENCE STUDY: One in six women have suffered domestic violence, a study suggests. One in five of these have been abused while pregnant. The study, by doctors in Hull, found abuse had ranged from verbal threats to forced sexual intercourse. Single women in their late 20s appeared most at risk and boyfriends were most likely to be the perpetrators.Two propositions. One, marriage buffs should confront the issue of domestic violence squarely and never permit cheerleading for marriage as a social institution to become in effect a way of ignoring or excusing this very serious problem. Two, marriage is an important social institution worthy of support, in part because if we got rid of marriage altogether tomorrow, rates of domestic violence would almost certainly go up, not down ("boyfriends were most likely to be the perpetrators"). Can't those two propositions go together, instead of each being used to undermine the other? Wednesday, March 05, 2003
FROM TODAY'S WSJ (available online only to subscribers): About 60 municipalities or states now have domestic-partner registries where unmarried couples can make it official. This step, while largely symbolic in most places, is paving the way in California for important rights like getting to decide what kind of medical care a critically ill partner should receive. The end result: Living together can increasingly resemble being married. More changes could be on the way. The American Law Institute, an influential organization of lawyers, judges and legal scholars, recently recommended sweeping changes in family law, including extending alimony-like payments to unmarried couples living together who split up after a long time. That's a big leap from the status quo; it's now rare for courts to award support payments in domestic-partner "divorce" cases. The Center on Fathers, Families, and Public Policy recently released a report on how fatherhood groups should deal with domestic violence. It�s an extremely important issue, and the Center deserves credit for reaching out to domestic violence groups and initiating this dialogue. It�s something the marriage movement should do as well. But based on the comments of David Pate, executive director of the Center, such a conversation could be difficult. In a press release, Pate is quoted as saying, "Our discussion did not focus on the concept of marriage at any cost." That�s true, the 20-page report doesn�t mention marriage once. So why does Pate add the �at any cost�? Even the staunchest supporters of marriage promotion don�t talk about encouraging marriage �at any cost.� The reason is because the Center seems to oppose promoting marriage in any way whatsoever. They only time they mention the �m-word� is when they are criticizing marriage promotion. One of their fundamental principles underscores their nonjudgmental approach to family structure: Public policy must support individuals' efforts to create families of their own choosing.Ok, so I want to impregnate three different women. Public policy must support my efforts! I want a group marriage. Public policy must support my efforts! Granted, those are extreme examples, but should public policy be neutral toward them? To pick a more common example, many low-income parents tell researchers that they would like to get married. So let�s say I want to have a healthy marriage. Shouldn�t public policy support my efforts? Why doesn�t the Center support healthy marriage initiatives that could help me out? WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS?: RAISING YOUR CHILD BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER DIVORCE is the title of Judith Wallerstein's new book. Check out NBC's The Today Show on March 13, and Time and USA TODAY for big features. She has great wisdom on this subject, and if I had to pick one person to write a "how-to" book for divorcing parents that avoids happy-talk and keeps the focus on the children rather than on how to make the grown-ups feel better, it would be her. TV REVIEW: "Of course, once the choices are made, Married will change into another show. The couples will pair up, and the show will be built around their relationship squabbles. It all leads up to that final big decision, and that inevitable Fox sequel: Divorced by America." FROM BRITAIN: "A briefing report, entitled "There's a War Going On - Aggression and Violence in Children", disclosed that 27 per cent of calls to the charity in 2002 were about attacks by youngsters on parents or other family members." Tuesday, March 04, 2003
REALITY TV MEETS PSYCHOLOGY TODAY: Seems that the editor of the magazine Psychlogy Today is looking for a woman to sign a Love Contract with him "that would require (a) that the two partners date no one else for an agreed upon period (perhaps 6 months or so), (b) that they undergo intensive counseling in order to master essential relationship skills and in order to become psychologically and emotionally intimate, and (c) that they attempt to create a deep and enduring love." And what kind of guy is the editor? As he puts it: "Typical 21st century stuff: I have two exes who hate me and four beautiful children whom I adore. I date occasionally when I'm not completely swamped with work. I believe strongly in traditional marriage, but I've not had much luck with it." Well, it's an interesting country. (Thanks to Diane Sollee.) "THE" FAMILY: In 2001, the Journal of Marriage and the Family changed its name to the Journal of Marriage and Family. I assume the "the" was bad because it supposedly implied that there is only one type of "legitimate" family--the heterosexual, married, Ozzie and Harriet, "intact" family with 2.3 kids--when of course there are many different types of families, all deserving of support. I actually think the new title is better. I'm just surprised that it took until 2001 for them to change it. From an old article in Journal of Marriage and the Family: If marital discord continues following the divorce, dysfunctional behavior can be expected among boys two years later, whereas girls appear unaffected by that time. (emphasis in original)If the parents are divorced, why is their continuing conflict still called marital discord? ACTRESS SADIE FROST doesn't want to be a single mom: She said: "I come from a family where my own parents split up three times. All I've ever wanted is to be normal and to be a good parent in an environment that is loving and nurturing. I find it terrifying I would have to go through being a single parent."Yet she adds: "Even when you go through difficult times, you have to sort it out. That is so important. Of course you don't stay with someone just because of the children and for the wrong reasons. But it would be such a heart wrench for me if my marriage didn't work out." (emphasis added)Yes, of course you don't stay together for the kids. That's the conventional wisdom today, because the research shows that staying in a lackluster marriage doesn't actually help the kids, right? ...Right? WELL, THAT'S ONE WAY TO SOLVE THE DISAGREEMENTS OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: In search of consensus, the Justice Department has floated the idea that Ottawa abandon responsibility for marriage, and let each community of faith define it for itself. In other words, all couples would be common-law in the eyes of the state.The government's proposal of non-marriage -- the "third option" -- is part of a discussion paper put before a House of Commons justice committee holding hearings on marriage's future ... In this plan, there would be something with legal substance, called registered partnerships. But couples who wanted to dress up their unions with something called marriage -- which would have no status in law -- would need to find a church, temple or mosque whose definition of wedlock they fit ... In the no-marriage option -- which could work only if the provinces and territories agreed -- all references to marriage in federal law would be removed. Federal divorce law would apply only to existing marriages (and the protection of children of those marriages). Registered partnerships, and their breakdown, would be governed by provincial and territorial law.Sadly, I'm not making this up. Some evidence, including the recent proposals by the American Law Institute on what it calls "family dissolution," suggests that a similar approach may be taking shape in the U.S. To me, it's one thing to say, let's redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. But it's quite another -- and much more destructive for children and society as a whole -- to say, let's get of marriage altogether in the name of establishing equal treatment for all close relationships. Is this really how we want to resolve this debate? "The Laguna Hills clinic, which is a joint effort with the Huntington Reproductive Center of Southern California, offers sex selection for two purposes: to help couples avoid passing on a gender-linked genetic disease and to allow families who already have a child of one gender "balance" their families by having a baby of the opposite sex." I undestand the gravity of the issue of gender-linked genetic disease, but almost nothing about this new option seems right to me, basically because it is an important step toward transforming the birth of a child into yet another venue for manipulation in the name of consumer choice. Here's a rant against recent sociobiological interpretations of courting and mating. Parts of it are funny and on target, but Dan Cere did a better job here. UK TEACHERS KNOCK PARENTS: In the study by the government's basic skills agency, teachers claim that half of all children now start school at four or five unable to speak audibly and be understood by others, respond to simple instructions, recognise their own names or even count to five. Learning nursery rhymes on a parent or carer's lap has traditionally been seen as an important first step towards the grasp of literacy and numeracy skills, and key to phonological development. But today's parents are blamed for failing to recognise the importance of helping to develop their children's communication skills, while the demands and pressures of modern life mean there are many readily avail able "talking machines" such as the computer and television that compete with talking and listening. Middle class as well as working class parents are criticised in the survey, accused of "buying" themselves out of having to give time to their children by giving them expensive presents such as computer games that do not need an adult's involvement. Monday, March 03, 2003
"PARENTS AND THE COURTS": Also from the NGLTF press release: Marriage and father involvement in the raising of a child should be determined by the individual parents and the courts, not mandated by the federal government.This is true enough, though nobody even begins to suggest that marriage and father involvement should somehow be federally mandated. What�s sad is that we're in a situation where "the courts" are forced to make so many these decisions. MARRIAGE IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO POVERTY--SO WHAT?: The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) opposes marriage and fatherhood promotion in welfare policy. No surprise there. But it's worth responding to. They state: The House Republican bill provides funds for "healthy marriage promotion activities" and "fatherhood programs" that assume everyone is straight, and promote marriage and fatherhood as the solution to child poverty.First, marriage and fatherhood initiatives do not assume everyone is straight; they merely assume, correctly, that the vast majority of children will be raised by straight parents. This is not �heterosexist� bigotry, it is reality. Therefore, so what if healthy marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood initiatives do not apply to gays and lesbians? Should heterosexuals similarly oppose AIDS-prevention tax dollars being spent on efforts targeted to the specific needs of the gay community? Second, who asserts that child poverty rates will drop to zero if all single parents got married? I see the word �solution� used all the time in this debate, but only by opponents of marriage promotion (i.e., �crazy conservatives argue that marriage is the solution to poverty�). If anyone can show me an instance when Wade Horn or a prominent marriage proponent said, �Marriage is the solution to poverty,� I�ll try to talk David Blankenhorn into buying you the biggest lunch in New York. A reasonable goal of healthy marriage promotion is to reduce poverty, not eliminate it. Robert Lerman, no radical right-winger, explains, �I don�t know if these programs will work. � What I would say is that if a $100 million program could effect even a modest change in the share of families that have healthy marriages, you would have substantial bang for the buck. � [I]t seems this is a reasonable thing to try.� DO WE NEED A "BOY PROJECT"? Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and others discuss why the guys are coming up short. LOSS AFTER LOSS: Joyce Maynard�s new novel about September 11th, The Usual Rules (St. Martin�s Press), is �Briefly Noted� in The New Yorker (March 3rd edition), which summarizes the book�s opening in this way: The protagonist, Wendy, is a thirteen-year-old girl who has just begun to rebel against her mother. The mother goes to work at the World Trade Center and doesn�t come home; Wendy is left with a load of inchoate guilt and misery, a devoted stepfather, an adored half brother, and a father in California who, after years of neglect, is suddenly interested in her. In a society in which divorce and single-parent childbearing have become so commonplace, it is not unusual for children who experience the death of a parent to be left with a confusing family structure in the aftermath, with a mass of newly-defined relationships to negotiate in the midst of their grief � nowhere was this more true than after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, when so many working parents were killed. A New York Times article by Amy Waldman, published just twelve days after the attacks, noted the �Anguish for Vast Toll of Children Left Behind,� which included the loss of single mothers and divorced fathers. Among [those lost] were Rosa Julia Gonzalez, 32, who used her last phone call from the World Trade Center to ask her sister to care for her 12-year old daughter, and Elizabeth Darling, 28, whose 2-year-old son, Michael, will go live with his father. Yamel Merino, 24, had said she wanted her 8-year-old son, Kevin, to live with his grandmother if anything happened to her, said a family friend� But now his father may try to get custody� Other articles followed in the wake of 9/11, noting the complexities of loss and grief when single and divorced parents die. A Newsday article on November 8, 2001, headlined, �Custody battles await youths left orphaned Sept. 11,� notes that: Advocates for children fear nasty custody battles could erupt if a noncustodial parent who played only a peripheral role in a child�s life tries to gain custody now, motivated primarily by hopes of cashing in on financial assistance to terror victims. Divorce produces innumerable losses for children, losses that increase in tragic and unexpected ways if a parent dies. Maynard's new novel appears to address that reality. INTERNET PORN: The institute, a Canberra-based think tank, wants an overhaul of the regulation of sexual content on the net. The institute's director, Dr Clive Hamilton, said: "Children are looking at internet sites depicting images of incest, sex with animals, extreme fetishes and rape. "The Federal Government and the regulators have become starry-eyed about the wonders of the information superhighway and have lost sight of the dangers to children." The paper argues that all Australian internet service providers should be required to apply filters to all content, unless users specifically chose to opt out. They have also called for age verification technologies to be introduced and a national high school program to educate teenagers about the problem.Here is a different take on the subject. FOR THE SAKE OF THE PETS: "Stella and Jason Hullot from Kent have around 50 pets - and have many more creatures in their home which doubles up as an animal rescue centre. They are paying �100 a year for a policy which will give their pets �25,000 for a solicitor should the couple divorce and argue over custody of the animals." Maybe the Wolfe Thesis applies to Britain, too. NEW CHILDREN'S BOOK AUTHOR: "Penguin is delighted to be working with Madonna on this distinctive and exciting publishing venture." Regarding Tom Wolfe's observation about the U.S., below, I rest his case. "Three recent polls show at least a 10 percent gap between women and men when asked whether they favor military action in Iraq. And the deeper these pollsters probe, the wider the gap grows." OH DEAR: Romantic black-and-white pictures grace the screen: A man slips a wedding band on a woman's hand. The happy couple smiles and kisses. Understated white text floats by: "Marriage is a sacred union ... between two people who have grown together over time."How do all of the conservatives who love Fox News feel about this? The last paragraph of a pretty bad article on marriage promotion: "No question but that Bush is pandering to a small, extreme group of right-wing Pharisees," said Rep. Pete Stark (D., Calif.). "I'm curious about witchcraft and whether deep down I'm a warlock. But that has nothing to do with politics, and that won't get kids educated or poor people fed or health care for seniors. This marriage thing is laughable."I don't want to unjustifiably complain about media bias, but it is annoying that the reporter let these silly comments stand as the final word in his article. Sunday, March 02, 2003
LIFE IMITATES ART: Fast-paced dating, a phenom at bars on land, is the latest twist at sea. It's a concept given Hollywood cachet by such shows as The Bachelorette and Joe Millionaire: Line up eligible men or women, then reject them or decide there's a chance for lasting love. The 3 Minute Dating concept appeals to today's time-pressed singles, says Singles Travel International president Tammy Weiler. "It offers the chance to meet 20 to 30 people who are available in a two-hour period." She booked 32 for the inaugural event on one of Carnival's regular three-day Bahamas trips.Tom Wolfe often points out that most of us have no idea what an over-the-top, stranger-than-fiction country we are. Just reading Ms. Weiler's job title makes me agree. SINK OF INIQUITY?: I never thought of New Zealand and "red light district" as naturally going together. But it seems that they are about to legalize prostitution -- see here and here and here. Under the proposed new system, the government would regulate and tax the sex industry; there is also, again amazingly to me, a fair amount of talk about "sisterhood" and how bad "Victorian morality" is. "Nurseries in Britain are about to be swept by the new craze of baby signing. Communicating with infants with strange hand gestures is to take over from baby massages as the latest fashion among aspirational parents ... The practice is becoming popular among parents in America. In some states, such as Florida, it is commonplace." It is? CLARENCE PAGE on the "gender gap": And it is too often easier for black girls to find excellent role models of strong black women in their mothers than for black boys to find their fathers � period. AUSSIE FAMILY POLICY DEBATE (CONT.): Don Edgar, former director of the Australian Institute for Family Studies, takes a few cheap shots at the Howard government ("no mention of Iraqi children"), but also makes some interesting points. More on this debate here. And here's an angry denunciation of Howard and Catherine Hakim -- more heat than light in my view. But this debate seems only just warming up. I wish we were having a livelier debate in the U.S. on public policy and maternal equity. PORNO FOR KIDS: It is not just those who go looking for it. An increasing number of teenagers aged 16 to 17 are stumbling on "hardcore" sex sites while casually roaming the internet. A new Australian study confirms the internet is a new frontier for accessing pornography, some of it of a violent and extreme kind. Eighty-four per cent of boys and more than half the girls surveyed said they had been accidentally exposed to online sex sites. Meanwhile, nearly two in five teenage boys said they had deliberately sought out internet sex sites. The research, commissioned by the Australia Institute, questioned 100 boys and 100 girls aged 16 to 17 in Melbourne and Sydney.More here and here. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
