 |
|
Saturday, September 27, 2003
FROM THE ONION: In an effort to streamline federal financial holdings and spur growth, Treasury Secretary John Snow announced Monday that the federal government will discontinue its long-term, low-yield investment in the nation's youth. "For generations, we've viewed spending on our nation's young people as an investment in the future," Snow said. "Unfortunately, investments of this type take a minimum of 18 years to mature, and even then, there's no guarantee of a profit. It's just not good business" ... "With the economy showing signs of recovery, now is the time to cut away the dead wood," Snow said. "As the stock market turns around, we have a real opportunity to make some money. But that's only if we shift the nation's funds into high-yield, short-term investments." LEGAL ADVICE TO OHIO'S DIVORCED PARENTS: In Ohio, divorced parents are not required to pay their kids' college costs. But if you agree to pay them, make sure you spell out exactly what costs are to be paid. And consider other issues that may arise. For example: You may make your payments contingent on your child discussing his or her college choices with you and on maintaining a particular grade point average. If the obligation to pay is not intended to continue indefinitely, spell out an end date, such as when your child reaches age 23, or spell out the number of years you're willing to pay. Specify whether your intention is to pay only when your child is a full-time student. State whether graduate school is covered. If you want your child to help cover the costs, you can make your payments contingent on your child's contributions. You may condition your payments on being kept informed of your child's address, telephone number, curriculum and extracurricular activities. These are just a few of the issues that have arisen in Ohio cases. Spell out clearly what is to be paid, and under what circumstances, to avoid future legal battles.The more one gets into the details of what a "good divorce" is supposed to look like, the more one realizes how different it is from marriage. From today's NYTs, an interesting review of a new book on the much-discussed-by-historians "progressive movement" in the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This graph caught my eye: The progressives campaigned for stricter divorce laws, they crusaded against the saloon and prostitution, and they did all they could to persuade the nation's youth and working people to steer clear of movie houses, dance halls and amusement parks, which they declared were dangerous for the same reason that they were so attractive: because they "promoted individualism and a more open sexuality."As this book tells it, apparently, U.S. progressives in these decades, in addition to fighting for changes in public policy, were deeply involved in "extrapolitical" efforts to transform American values in the areas of marriage and family and community life. Pretty interesting stuff. In part because my own political formation occurred on the left, and because I still have much sympathy for the progressive tradition and agenda, I've often wondered, and worried, about the fact that most of today's progressives seem so indifferent, even to the point of hostility, to efforts to strengthen marriage as a social institution and try to build a society in which more and more, rather than fewer and fewer, U.S. children grow up with two parents who love them and who are comitted to one other. In my mind's eye, I see that old progressive generation, who fought for tough child labor laws because they cared about child well being and thought that we could do better, and who fought for "stricter divorce laws" for exactly the same reason. Working on both fronts at the same time made sense to them then. It makes sense to me now. Friday, September 26, 2003
"Nearly 1.7 million people fell into poverty last year, ticking the official poverty rate up to 12.1 percent from the 2001 rate of 11.7 percent, the second straight year that poverty has increased in the United States, the U.S. Census Bureau reported today." ADULTS� RIGHTS OR CHILDREN�S NEEDS? David blogs, �I think if we focused on reducing divorce, rather than supposedly improving our procedures for divorce, we would help a lot more children and do a lot more good for everyone,� and no one will be surprised to hear that I agree. What bothers me about the post like the one David cited is that it talks about giving parents �equal access� and getting rid of �discrimination against fathers.� Adults� rights are still the center of the discussion here, whether it�s the right to divorce or the right to have �access� to your child after a divorce. But what about children�s needs? It is troubling that too often children�s needs are studied and cited only as supporting evidence to argue for adult rights. Yes, children need their fathers, and yes, divorced fathers have a point in arguing this. But what children need even more than having a relationship with both divorced parents is having both their parents in their home, at the same time, married to each other, and getting along at least fairly well with each other. If we put children�s needs at the center of the discussion then that is where the discussion leads � in the direction of how to support and improve marriages, not how to tweak divorces to make them more "fair" for adults or marginally better for kids. FROM BOSTON: State lawmakers are considering a measure that would give noncustodial parents equal status in parenting after a divorce and eliminate what critics say are unfair laws that discriminate against fathers. Avocates for fathers' rights will urge a legislative panel today to pass a bill that would allow judges in divorce cases to establish a plan for shared parenting of a child. The Judiciary Committee is also considering a similar measure that would curb the rights of a custodial parent to move with their child to another state without the consent of the other parent.Both of these ideas -- restricting the right of the divorced parent to move, and the legal presumption in favor of joint physical custody -- strike me as dubious. I'm all for public policy, and the society as a whole, doing whatever we can to reduce unnecessary divorce, including longer waiting periods for divorce, mandated counseling for those filing for divorce, and reconsidering no-fault divorce laws, especially in cases where one spouse does not want the divorce. But once we as a society DO say that it's OK for two people to divorce, it seems a bit perverse then to turn around and deny them some of the rights we give to all other single people (including, for example, never-married mothers), such as the right to move to another town. It's kind of a mixed message, isn't it? It's OK to get divorced. But not really. Looking at the research, it seems that joint custody can work as well as any other arrangement when and if the spouses want to make it work. But legally imposing it on most divorcing couples, many of whom seem to want nothing more than to fight with one another, strikes me as heavy-handed and unlikely to improve child well being. It's another example of our telling ourselves, wrongly in my view, that the real issue is not divorce itself, but how we carry out the divorce. I think if we focused on reducing divorce, rather than supposedly improving our procedures for divorce, we would help a lot more children and do a lot more good for everyone. I also notice that my perspective on these two specific issues seems to be losing ground, both in the U.S. and in other countries, such as Australia. The fathers rights movement and its allies seem to be making real progress both legislatively and in terms of public pursuasion. "The Republican Party national platform is expected to include a condemnation of same-sex marriage and to support a constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian couples from being wed." Thursday, September 25, 2003
FROM CLEVELAND: Councilman Kevin Conwell believes most of Cleveland's ills can be traced to absentee fathers, and he's starting a task force to help get dads involved in their children's lives. When the dad is involved, the child's grades go up and their self-esteem goes up," Conwell said. Conwell, a father of three who represents portions of Glenville and University Circle, has introduced an ordinance to create "The Mayor's Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood." "A young Black father's look at fatherhood": Well, obviously you got to think about the perception of Black people already. They already think that we don't care about our kids. If we are youngstas, we run out and leave the baby-mama stranded and make four or five kids here and there. Or we don't stay with our kids. If we do, we stay for 6 months or so and then leave. We don't teach them no type of self respect or how to respect others and all those type of things - and that's the complete opposite with me. I'm 25 years old, I had my son when I was 19. My girl - her father is white and her mother is Black - and I already knew that they had one perception of me, thinking that I'm this youngsta out here in the Town that's gonna get their daughter pregnant and cut. She had another perception of me: "I want to believe him," but at the same token I know that she wasn't dumb to the facts. But I think that I killed and destroyed everybody's perception, just for the simple fact that I stayed with her. We are less than 30 days from getting married. A lot of people would say, why did you take so long? But really you got to get to know the person that you are going to get married to for the rest of your life. I ain't just going to be rushed into it, just because we had a kid either ... I go to work and school, come home and still have time to play with him and still have time to maintain the relationship with his mother. We've been strong for 8 years and counting, you know what I'm saying? So the whole perception on how they be having Black people is wrong. And how you can make it wrong is by doing the things that you need to do. As far as me, I felt that as soon as it was time for me to have my son, it was time for me to wise up. And like I said, I was only 19 years old. I had to wise up and know that this is something that you got to take care of for the rest of your life. FROM PORTUGAL: Portugal, a nation of just over 10 million people, has one of the highest divorce rates in the EU. It surged a whopping 128 per cent between 1993 and 2002 - from 1.2 to 2.7 divorces for every 1000 people. Many newly divorced men have turned to the portal, called Vida-On, for advice on supposed women's concerns, such as which bathroom cleanser works best or how to remove a stubborn stain from a white shirt. Oliveira says the website, which aims to be an online survival manual for divorced men, has received more than 1000 hits daily since its launch in June. Another 1000 men have signed up for an email newsletter offered by the site. "Everything will seem easier because we are here," the portal says on its home page, which promises "tips and tricks to make your home habitable". Organizations in favor and opposed to same sex marriage have earmarked the same week for national demonstrations to promote their views. Wednesday, September 24, 2003
NEW ABC POLL: 55 percent of those questioned rejected the idea of granting legal marriage rights to gays and lesbians. 37 percent said same-sex marriage should be legal. The results reflect similar attitudes on other recent surveys. But, when asked if the Constitution should be amended, only 20 percent agreed ... The ABC poll also shows that younger people are equally divided on whether same-sex marriage should be legalized. But, the divide widens with age. Among those over the age of 65, 73 percent said no. The survey shows that more Democrats than Republicans favor gay marriage; 47 - 45 percent. It also shows that most marrieds reject gay marriage. 63 percent said no to same-sex marriage. Among non-marrieds, a small majority 48 - 47 percent said yes. FROM NASHVILLE, TN: Southern Baptists are partnering with a host of notable evangelical ministries to help churches get involved in the work to preserve the divine institution of marriage, Richard Land reported to the SBC Executive Committee Sept. 23. In announcing Marriage Protection Week (www.marriageprotectionweek.com), Land said the SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission which he leads has worked with concerned ministries, such as Focus on the Family, the American Family Association and Prison Fellowship, "to develop a cohesive and workable plan to aid and assist churches in responding to the well-organized and well-funded effort to redefine marriage." Churches are being asked to mark Marriage Protection Week Oct. 12-18. CONGRATS: Mary Ann Glendon and Leon Kass, two friends and Institute leaders, are recipients of the 2003 Bradley Prize, an award begun this year by the Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee. I can't think of two better people to get the award. FROM ALBANY, NY: "With the State Democratic Committee's full blessing, a bill to allow gay marriage is heading to the floor of the Legislature ... " FROM SCOTLAND: A Liberal Democrat MSP has attacked Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson for insisting that marriage provides the best family environment. Margaret Smith said she was "absolutely dismayed" at the minister for claiming that marriage was the basis for strong and stable families. Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Bettina Arndt summarizes research telling men how to make their marriage work: Gottman's advice to men was as follows: "If you want your marriage to last for a long time, just do what your wife says. Go ahead, give in to her . . . The marriages that did work all had one thing in common - the husband was willing to give in to the wife." FROM AN EXCERPT FROM A NEW BOOK, The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke: Rather, the people who consistently rank in the worst financial trouble are united by one surprising characteristic. They are parents with children at home. Having a child is now the single best predictor that a woman will end up in financial collapse. Consider a few facts. Our study showed that married couples with children are more than twice as likely to file for bankruptcy as their childless counterparts. A divorced woman raising a youngster is nearly three times more likely to file for bankruptcy than her single friend who never had children. FROM MILWAUKEE, WI: "It's a huge problem in Milwaukee," says Ray, also a facilitator and trainer for the Nurturing Fathers Program sponsored by the Park Lawn YMCA. "It gets frustrating when you work with kids and you see fathers not in their lives." FROM ALEXANDRIA, LA:"The 9th Judicial District Court held graduation ceremonies for the latest to pass through the Father Assistance Program. The program encourages fathers who are behind in their child support to be more responsible." FROM SHREVEPORT, LA: Fatherlessness is the latest social crisis identified by area churches, and with the help of the National Center for Fathering, they are launching an initiative to educate men on their role in the family. "One of the greatest crises in America is the crisis involving fathers and their role in the home and community," the Rev. Denny Duron, pastor of First Assembly of God in Shreveport, said. About 100 representatives from churches and social service agencies gathered recently to kick off the initiative. Ken Canfield, founder and president of the national center, presented an overview of the program which will begin with a seminar in November at Broadmoor Baptist church. There he will discuss the "Seven Secrets of Effective Fathers." FROM ALBANY, NY: "The Democratic State Committee jumped headlong into the debate over same-sex marriage Monday by unanimously voting to support pending legislation that would allow gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples to wed." JUST HOW STUPID IS BRITNEY SPEARS? Speaketh Miss Spears in Rolling Stone: "I'm not gonna come out on this record and show my crotch or anything. That's not me. I would never do anything like that. It's all in the way you do stuff, all in the way you carry things. The music is most important to me."Um, Britney, have you seen the cover photo that accompanies your interview? You show everything but. Oh, and your music is awful. Poor parents with teeny-bopper daughters. A lot of young girls seemed to like Britney Spears, and I wonder if Miss Spears ever thought about those girls when making her move toward a more "mature" (read: trashy) image. But, based on the interview, a more appropriate question is if she thinks about much of anything at all. Mindless pop, indeed. Today I went to an introductory meeting for a small fatherhood program started by one of my law school classmates. Since I've never really seen fatherhood programs at the grassroots level, I'm looking forward to seeing how it goes. It's a pretty simple setup--planning events for non-resident fathers and their kids--but even front-end issues of permission slips and screening out potentially unsafe participants take serious thought (especially as we're all learning about liability laws). Monday, September 22, 2003
NO OVERLAPPING DISTRIBUTIONS, PLEASE: Great riff by Tom on Dorian Solot's argument that ''talking about averages misses the basic fact that most children do well regardless of family form.'' He puts it in plain English. Just for fun, let me try to translate it into academic-ese. What Solot is saying is that the differences among these groups of children reflect "overlapping distributions" rather than "categorical" differences. Categorical differences would mean that every child in one group would be better off, or worse off, than every child in the other group. With overlapping distributions, by contrast, whereas some children in group A are worse off than some children in group B, it is nevertheless true that in general -- "on average" -- children in group A are better off than children in group B. Examples of overlapping distributions would be to compare children growing up in orphanages, or children whose families had been killed in war, to children in the general population. Some of the orphaned children will do better than some of those who are not orphaned, but in general, suffering in this way constitutes a serious risk factor. This is the mode of analysis that Solot seeks so strenuously to avoid, since it's precisely the way of analyzing child well-being that most directly contradicts her happy-talk about diversity in family forms. The other point she wants to blur is the degree of risk -- it's like saying that, since "most" smokers don't get lung cancer, smoking is nothing to worry about when it comes your health. Go figure. FROM THE UAE: "The Islamic Sharia requires husbands and wives to try preserve their marriages at any cost and avoid divorce." FOR DEJURIDIFICATION (CONT.): Maybe the gay community and the traditionalists could get behind a constitutional amendment barring Congress or the legislatures from licensing, conducting or regulating marriage at all. No faction would then need to be concerned that government's power could imperil any other faction's definition of marriage. As long as we believe it our duty to correct unconstitutional laws, maybe it's time to amend the states out of marriage and protect the religious, marital and association rights of everyone without stamping the imprimatur of government on any of them. FROM THE SF CHRONICLE: "Sealing his reputation as one of the nation's most gay-friendly governors, Gray Davis signed a domestic partner bill Friday night granting same-sex couples in California nearly all the same rights and responsibilities as married spouses." FROM BANGLADESH: "Three members of a family were acid-burnt at Rajair in Madaripur Friday, as they turned down a proposal of marriage to their adolescent daughter." Anne Mahoney, a professor of sociology at the University of Denver, on how "tricky" it is to define marriage: As partners learn a wider range of behaviors, their marriages are organized less around the differences between men and women and more around a shared commitment to the relationship. The ideal American marriage is moving toward a form that sociologist Frank Furstenberg calls "symmetrical." Although sex remains salient, gender may become irrelevant. ALABAMA AND SSM -- NEW POLL: "Eighty-two percent of those responding to the Mobile Register-University of South Alabama poll said they do not support same-sex marriages. The survey, conducted Monday through Thursday, has a margin of error of 5 percentage points." YESTERDAY WILL, TODAY RASPBERRY: In today's WaPo, another great column on Hardwired to Connect, this time by William Raspberry. Jane Eisner, a columnist at the Philly Inquirer, has an interesting column on "care work" and the motherhood movement: "Feminist or full-time mother, we need to value caregivers more highly." DON'T CHANGE THE SUBJECT, AVERAGES MATTER: I just re-read the USA Today article on the rise in unmarried parenting, and I got re-annoyed at the last paragraph, which quotes Dorian Solot, co-author of the book Unmarried to Each Other (the title of which, incidentally, describes my relationship to her): Research can only take live-in parents so far, Solot says. ''Talking about averages misses the basic fact that most children do well regardless of family form.'' There are ''all kinds of risks, emotional and legal, but unmarried families can certainly thrive if they are loving, fairly stable and have set up rules and goals.''What Solot says is true, but so what? She doesn't want to talk about averages; she wants to deflect the discussion away from family form. (Indeed, the Alternatives to Marriage Project likes the subject of family form only in the context of paeans to family diversity; once you start to talk about the research on how well children do in different family forms, it's time to stop looking too closely at family diversity.) Yes, averages are only averages, and individual situations are individual situations. But averages matter, especially when societies go about shaping policies, laws, and cultural norms. Let's look at poverty: I heartily agree with Solot that alleviating child poverty is a goal toward which more of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars should be spent. Why? My bleeding-liberal heart aside, because children who grow up in poverty face many significant disadvantages and are less likely, on average, to do as well as children who don't grow up poor. But I wonder how Solot would respond if a cold-hearted Wall Street Journal conservative were to say, "Well, talking about averages overlooks the fact that many poor children do well, especially if their families are loving, fairly stable, and have set up rules and goals." In law school, it seems that my professors use the gender-neutral term "spouse" even when clearly referring to a spouse of a certain gender (i.e., a husband or a wife). Also, my contracts professor uses the term "parentalism" instead of "paternalism." I have no comment on that observation, I just found it slightly interesting. Sunday, September 21, 2003
SINGLE MOTHERS BY CHOICE: Becoming a single mother by choice, through means like adoption or artificial insemination, is not the radical concept it once was. Yet to be a single parent in overwhelmingly married, affluent, have-it-all Westchester County, where children and spouses may seem to be obligatory to the suburban style of life, carries burdens and joys all its own. � AS THE WEST GOES... Rapidly changing attitudes toward divorce � as well as such other issues as marriage, childbearing and cohabitation � show a South Korea in the throes of a social transformation. Still anchored in Confucian values of family and patriarchy, South Korea is fast becoming an open, Westernized society � with the world's highest concentration of Internet broadband users, a pop culture that has recently been breaking taboos left and right, and living patterns increasingly focusing on individual satisfaction. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
