 |
|
Friday, June 20, 2003
IT'S FRIDAY: This ad is not marriage-related, but it's really cool, because it's real--no computer-generated effects.
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 3:36 PM |Link
ANDREW SULLIVAN, arguing against the notion that same-sex marriage will undermine the norm that a child needs a mother and a father, not just "parents," writes: "The gender of a parent has already been subject to all sorts of permutations under the increasingly diverse realm of heterosexual marital arrangements."
If someone can tell me what that sentence means, I'd be grateful. If he means that hetero marriages today are already marked by much fragility and high levels of breakup, leading to all kinds of not-very-good living arrangements for children, then I understand his meaning. But in what way does this point possibly advance Sullivan's argument? Is he really saying that, since marriage is already a weakened institution, making it weaker still won't matter much? Or am I missing something?
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 12:24 PM |Link
FROM NORWAY: For the first time, a majority of children are born out of wedlock.Frode Thuen, a lifestyles researcher at the Hemil Center in Bergen, said marriage no longer marks the beginning of a life together for two people. "Now it's used more as a confirmation that two people want to live together, after testing out their relationship over time," he said.Thuen also noted that couples who have children without being married remain three times as likely to break up than married couples are. Aasa Rytter Evensen, a local expert on lifestyles, said it was "unfortunate" that so many Norwegians have children without being married. "It's worrisome that people who choose to have children together don't dare to commit themselves more in relation to each other," she said. "The children risk growing up with less stability."
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 12:18 PM |Link
FROM AUSTRALIA: The Howard government in Australia seems to be considering seriously a policy change to establish the rebuttable presumption in favor of joint custody in cases of parental divorce.
This is a hard issue. But from what I have been able to learn, a legal presumption of joint custody is a bad idea. It would be likely to increase, rather than decrease, the rancor and animosity that typifies so many divorces. It would be likely to increase the number of children who end up caught in the middle of on-going parental warfare. And there is very little evidence that, in general, joint custody after divorce improves child well-being. Yes, children need two parents. That's a main reason why divorce is tragic. But I think we are kidding ourselves if we think that something called joint custody after divorce -- especially when it's imposed by government -- is going to fix what is broken.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 11:55 AM |Link
NEW CENSUS REPORT: Unlike the OJJDP (below), the Census Bureau talks about the benefits of having two parents in its latest report, "Children's Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March 2002." From the report's summary:Children in two-parent families generally had access to more financial resources and greater amounts of parental time. They also were more likely to participate in extracurricular activities, progress more steadily in school, and have more supervision over their activities such as television watching. The presence of two parents continues to be one of the most important factors in children's lives. Yes, that's not very shocking. It's all common sense and is supported by a great deal of research. But the fact that it's in a Census Bureau report is significant.
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 11:50 AM |Link
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has a new report on child delinquency, meaning delinquents under age 13. The report notes that "Juvenile courts are being challenged by an increase in the number of child delinquents coming before them." Listed among the risk factors for delinquency are poverty, serious marital discord, and large family size. Family structure is not mentioned *once* in the whole report. That strikes me as odd, given what the literature shows about the links between family structure and delinquency, at least among adolescents. In fact, according to an article by Cesar Rebellon of Emory University in Criminology, this relationship may be stronger than most researchers think. Here's the abstract from his 2002 article:As a result of methodological limitations, prior research may have artificially attenuated the magnitude of the broken homes/delinquency relationship. As a result of theoretical limitations, prior research has achieved only limited success in identifying the mechanism through which broken homes may promote delinquency. The present study addresses both issues using a national probability sample of 1,725 adolescents. Results suggest that divorce/separation early in the life course may be more strongly related to delinquency than prior research implies and that remarriage during adolescence may be strongly associated with status offending. Overall, results also suggest that association with deviant peers and attitudes favorable to delinquency account for the broken homes/delinquency relationship better than do a number of alternative explanations. So why is the OJJDP report silent on the issue of family structure?
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 11:21 AM |Link
RESPONDING to yesterday's post about the bogus WSJ story purporting to show a "surge" in divorce among older Americans, William Doherty of the University of Minnesota writes:One additional point to make in refuting the "marriage was not intended to last this long" argument is that the most fragile years of marriage are the early ones, not the later ones. The divorce rate per year of marriage goes down after the third year of marriage, and half of those who ever divorce do so within the first ten years. If marriage were an endurance test, you would expect divorce rates to increase over time -- kind of like joggers giving up running over the years because the human body was not built for that kind of exercise to continue into late adulthood (I know mine wasn't). But the evidence of history is that we are indeed "built" for marriages that last until death, human frailty notwithstanding, unless an anti-marriage culture intervenes.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 10:48 AM |Link
Thursday, June 19, 2003
MARRIAGE RAP: I just have to give a shout out to Nas, NYC's hottest MC, for his latest song, "I Can". Backed by Beethoven's Fur Elise, the song encourages kids to set goals, to avoid drugs and the wrong crowd, to read and study hard, and other things your mom would say. My mom would especially like the part when Nas tells young girls to "act your age, don't pretend to be older than you are, give yourself time to grow."Given that moms would like the song's message, one might think most hip hop fans would hate it. But Nas is no Mickey Mouse, or even a bubblegum pop rapper like Will Smith. Nas has some street cred, so kids will listen to this song. Here are the last lines from "I Can": If the truth is told, the youth can grow They learn to survive until they gain control Nobody says you have to be gangstas, hoes Read more, learn more, change the globe Ghetto children, do your thing Hold your head up, little man, you're a king Young Princess when you get your wedding ring Your man will sing, "She's my queen" Here's what the video director had to say:"Nas is wearing a shirt that says, 'I am the American Dream.' I think that summed it all up. You can be whatever you want to be. When you speak about it, it sounds a little corny, but when it's delivered to you the way Nas does and you see these kids, it's real and touches you." Yes, it does sound corny. But I strongly encourage you to watch the video for yourself, especially all y'all who haven't seen a rap video lately. Which I'm guessing may be a fair number of you.(If you're having problems viewing the video, you can try other formats here.)
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 4:13 PM |Link
THE AUSSIE FATHERS RIGHTS DEBATE: The always-sharp Bettina Arndt weighs in.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 3:35 PM |Link
"HAPPY TO MIX IT ALL UP": Unlike the rise in father absence, this trend in family diversity is more encouraging: Young Latinos aren't afraid to mix it up personally with other American races and cultural groups. Like Asian Americans, they have shown a strong tendency to intermarry. Roughly 30 percent of second-generation Latinos and Asians now wed people from outside their own racial groups. Mixed-race births in California have grown from 40,000 in 1980 to more than 70,000 annually; one out of every seven babies born in the Golden State in 1997 had parents of different races. This unprecedented mixing alone guarantees the development of an increasingly blended culture, not only for Latinos and Asians in particular but for young Americans as a whole.
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 2:42 PM |Link
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL BLOWS IT (AGAIN): The last time we heard from Jeffrey Zaslow of the Wall Street Journal on the subject of divorce, in January of this year, he was reporting that "tense times," including the effects of the September 11 attacks, were causing an increase in divorce. "Divorce Makes a Comeback," the headline dramatically declared.
But the story was bogus. As David Blankenhorn explained, there is no credible evidence that divorce in the U.S. is increasing, or making a "comeback." In fact, research indicates that U.S. divorce rates have been modestly declining for some time now.
Unfortunately, Mr. Zaslow has revisited the subject. In Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, Mr. Zaslow reports with considerable fanfare that the U.S. is experiencing a "boom in breakups" among older couples.
Is he right? Are social forces and Viagra causing more grandpas and grandmas to suddenly split? Find out what's really going on in a response by David Blankenhorn and me.
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 11:21 AM |Link
"The birth of Britain's first "designer baby" has led to calls today for a public and parliamentary debate over the laws governing fertility and embryo treatment."
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 10:57 AM |Link
Stories on the Canadian same-sex marriage issue here and here and here.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 10:54 AM |Link
David Frum on same-sex marriage.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 10:50 AM |Link
MORE on the new National Marriage Project "State of Our Unions" report here. And here. And here.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 10:34 AM |Link
Wednesday, June 18, 2003
IN COMMENTARY, a nice exchange between Kay Hymowitz and her critics regarding her recent piece on the American Law Institute's proposals for changes in family law. I think she wins on points. (Note to Kay: Ashton Applewhite is a her, not a him.)
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 6:02 PM |Link
FROM THE TELEGRAPH: "A girl of six is being asked by a court to say whether she wishes to return to live with her mother in England or stay in Italy with her father."
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 5:55 PM |Link
"They get to live with their mother and their father -- just not at the same time": More on fathers rights and joint custody from Australia, where the debate appears to be heating up. Another article here.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 5:03 PM |Link
THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION has just released a new report focusing on "radical feminist" opposition to marriage.
The style is take-no-prisoners, and while they make some valid points, in my view they fail to acknowledge sufficiently that the kind of overt, man-hating, anti-marriage rhetoric featured in this reported probably peaked in the U.S., in terms of public influence, in the early 1970s, and is no longer very widespread or influential.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 4:59 PM |Link
FROM AUSTRALIA: Fathers rights advocates make their case.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 4:49 PM |Link
JUST RELEASED: The State of Our Unions: The Social Health of Marriage in American, 2003. By David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. Press release here.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 4:44 PM |Link
FROM CANADA: Statments about same-sex marriage, on either side, typically shed more heat than light. But this statement in my view is an exception. It's anti, but it's also respectful, carefully argued, and clearly sincerely concerned about the future of marriage as a vital social institution.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 4:40 PM |Link
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
TRENDS: Thinking back on recent reports, it appears that the following things have happened since about 1995. Proportion of African-American children in own-two-parent married couple homes, up. Proportion of all U.S. children in two-parent homes, up. Martial fertility, up. Reported marital happiness, up. Proportion of children born to unwed parents, roughly stagnant. Teen pregnancy, down. Teen sex, down. Abortion, down. Child poverty, down. Concentrated poverty (live in neighborhoods where 40 percent or more are poor), down. We have to grow up and face facts: there is some good news.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 9:04 PM |Link
IT'S FINAL IN CANADA: "The federal government won't appeal three recent rulings that said banning same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. Prime Minister Jean Chr�tien made the announcement Tuesday at the conclusion of a Liberal cabinet retreat in Ottawa." AP story here.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 8:46 PM |Link
"Teenage girls are snatching up the very symbol of a lifestyle that their mothers' generation derided as sexist and exploitative. Hugh Hefner's rabbit -- a logo drawn in 30 minutes half a century ago by Playboy magazine's first art director -- has found a new hutch in the younger generation's closets."
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 2:24 PM |Link
Mom's Set-List from McSweeney's (scroll down).
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 12:05 PM |Link
On being an unmarried man in the U.S. in 1898.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 11:27 AM |Link
DADS, A REASON TO DO THE DISHES: Scott Coltrane and Michele Adams of the University of California, Riverside found that children who do housework with their fathers tend to be better adjusted and are less likely to get into trouble at school. Plus, wives find husbands who do housework to be more sexy.Though I don't see anything wrong with gendered roles within marriage (e.g. woman does most of the housework, man works on the lawn, car, home repair, etc.) as long as burdens are shared, I think it's great when men do more housework. Goodness knows many moms are overburdened. But I'm skeptical about Coltrane's apparent push for gender-neutral parenting. From the article: At the same time, father�s interactions with their children remain shaped by older expectations about what men and women should do. For example, fathers spend about four times as much time doing sports with children as mothers and spend more time in play or leisure with children than doing housework with them Yes, part of the reason that I played catch with my dad instead of my mom was because of gender role expectations. But another reason was that my mom, bless her heart, throws like a girl. I couldn't wrestle with my mom the way I could with my dad, nor tackle her in football. And that's not just an artifact of outdated traditions. So, by all means, fathers doing housework is a good thing. But let's not kid ourselves about the feasibility of parental androgeny.
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 11:20 AM |Link
OUT OF ORDER: I�ve been hearing a lot lately about the new Showtime mini-series, �Out of Order,� that purports to show the �anatomy of a troubled marriage,� according to a review in this week�s New Yorker. The review is similar to most coverage I�ve seen, opening with the suggestion that all those couples getting married in this month of June will �just have to find out for themselves just how deadening a long marriage can be,� because they will be too busy to watch the show.
It�s true that a �long marriage� (the couple at the heart of the show has been married sixteen years) can create some challenges, and couples have to work at staying lovingly connected even when the stresses of life often pull them apart. But is a long marriage the most pressing problem for this couple, or something different?
Well, according to the review, the wife in the couple suffers from bi-polar disorder. She doesn�t get out of bed in the morning. She struggles with memories of severe trauma as a child. She comes home at three in the morning, drunk and manic.
Bi-polar disorder is a serious mental illness, and for that reason I would argue that the show may give us a lot more insight into what it�s like to have bi-polar disorder, or be married to someone who does, than it tells us about marriage in general. Mental illness is hellish and heartbreaking for anyone who experiences it, and for those who love them. It�s worth exploring on TV. But those couples getting married this June, who don�t have time to watch �Out of Order,� need not worry. The chance that they will struggle with a problem like this is real, but slight, and there�s no need to think that this grim portrait of marriage will be theirs sixteen years from now.
It's not as hip and glossy, but try watching reruns of "What About Raymond" instead. It offers much better insight into the commonplace realities -- and joys -- of marriage.
posted by Elizabeth Marquardt
at 11:08 AM |Link
IT'S NOT TRUE THAT "NO ONE'S HOME": Of the 41.8 million kids under 15 who lived with two parents last year, more than 25 percent had mothers who stayed home, according to a Census Bureau report.That was up from 23 percent, or 9.4 million children, in such situations in 1994, a bureau analyst said. Full-time, stay-at-home dads took care of 189,000 kids in 2002, up 18 percent ... The Census Bureau also reported that 55 percent of women who gave birth between July 1999 and July 2000 returned to the labor force within a year of having their babies. That was down from a record high of 59 percent the last time the survey was conducted in 1998.
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 11:01 AM |Link
HAPPY MARRIAGE: Research by Paul Amato, Alan Booth, and their colleagues suggest that levels of marital satisfaction are as high as they were 20 years ago. That's not to say there haven't been some significant changes in marriage over the past two decades -- some positive and some negative, the researcher said. But the positives and negatives appear to balance one another out. For example, Booth said, couples have become more egalitarian in marriage. That is, "they are more equal in terms of the number of times each gets his or her own way," he added. "The relationship is becoming more of a partnership where both people have equal standing." On the other hand, couples in 2000 were more likely to report living together before getting married. And cohabitation tends to have a negative effect on the stability of marriage, according to Booth. "People who cohabit are much more likely to divorce," he said. I think the trend toward more egalitarian marriages is encouraging, and I'm surprised to hear Booth state so strongly the link between cohabitation and divorce.
posted by Tom Sylvester
at 10:07 AM |Link
Monday, June 16, 2003
MAGGIE GALLAGHER WRITES:
How do men grow into that magnificent thing, a good father, except by taking on the challenge? The most interesting thing about the new hit "Finding Nemo" is that it depicts, simultaneously, both a boy's journey toward manhood and a man's journey toward fatherhood. In defending his son, Marlin becomes someone bigger, better, stronger, more admirable and reliable than he had ever imagined possible.
posted by Elizabeth Marquardt
at 9:46 PM |Link
Sunday, June 15, 2003
"A 2001 report in the Journal of Marriage and Family, based on time diaries from 1,761 families, showed fathers then had two-thirds as much direct interaction with their children as mothers did. That was up from one-third as much interaction in the 1970s and '80s."
posted by David Blankenhorn
at 12:38 PM |Link
|
|
|