Saturday, October 25, 2003
 
MORE INTENTIONALLY CHILD-FREE TIDBITS:

One woman [who has decided not to have children] asked: "What would the return be on the investment? Are there any laws that would require my children to pay for my nursing home when I am old? Are they going to be a sufficient hedge against poverty and loneliness?" �

Some who have chosen to be childless have actually formed organizations in order to band together. The group "No Kidding" was formed in Atlanta four years ago as a social outlet for couples choosing to have no children. �[One woman] explained that "No Kidding" members are more likely to talk about pets, travel, or other common interests. Kids rarely come up as a topic of conversation. "People think we sit around and talk about how we hate kids, but we almost never mention kids," Traci explained. No wonder.

Another woman in the Atlanta group explained, "you focus those motherly feelings elsewhere. For us, our dogs get all that love."




 
LITTLE KIDS VS. BIG KIDS:

An early conclusion from a new marriage study:

Couples with minor children in the house have worse marriages than their kid-free peers. But having adult children actually slows the decline in marital quality. In other words, raising kids is a pain, but when they turn into grandbaby-delivery systems, it's nothing but love.




 
CHILD-FREE BY CHOICE, AND NOT:

The number of women 15 to 44 forgoing or delaying motherhood has grown nearly 10 percent since 1990, when roughly 24.3 million were in that class. � The Census Bureau said 18 percent of women ages 40 to 44 are child-free, a number that has doubled since 1976.




 
IN INDIANA: Clergy from almost one-fifth of Porter County�s churches declared their fight against divorce by signing a Community Marriage Policy on the steps of the Courthouse Annex on Friday.


Friday, October 24, 2003
 
THIS SOUND LIKE A GREAT PROGRAM: "A Father's Place."

This group is in South Carolina, and is funded by something called South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families. And therein, I think, hangs a small tale.

Several years ago, I got a call from a group of South Carolina nuns, Sisters of Charity, who were selling a local hospital that their order had run for generations. Having taken vows of poverty, they had been wondering, what should they do with the proceeds of the sale? To help them decide, they had asked Dr. Barbara Morrison at the University of South Carolina to write a paper for them, trying to answer this question: If some nuns with a lot of money wanted to spend it all to reduce child poverty in South Carolina, how exactly should they spend it? To her great credit, in my view, Barbara told them, in effect, to try to find ways to re-connect fathers to the lives of these children. The nuns asked me to come down to help them think through how to implement this idea. I was thrilled to do it.

I don't know for sure, but I'd bet the farm that "A Father's Place" is a product, either directly or indirectly, of that initiative. God bless those nuns. They are teaching me, and a lot of other guys, what fatherhood is.

UPDATE: Just Googled "A Father's Place" and ... I was right.


 
FROM IRELAND: "The Unmarried and Separated Fathers of Ireland group is due to mount a protest against Irish family law outside the D�il today."

Interesting that this group sees divorced and never-married fathers as being similar enough to make common cause.


 
FROM AUSTRALIA:
Australian family life has undergone dramatic change in the past 20 years but the divorce rate is no higher than it was in 1981. Surprised? David de Vaus, the senior research adviser at the Australian Institute of Family Studies, and author of a new book about the Australian family, says many doomsayers have got it wrong. "I hear people say the divorce rate is increasing, and that half Australian marriages end in divorce," he says. "Both statements are patently untrue." In 1981 there were 11.9 divorces per 1000 married women, and in 2000 there were 12 divorces per 1000 married women. As for the oft-quoted 50 per cent failure rate, Professor de Vaus, who is also professor of sociology at La Trobe University, says the real figure is one-third of current marriages. "That 50 per cent figure is for the US," he says.
Actually, even for the U.S., at least as regards first marriages, that 50 percent figure is very misleading.


 
"WIVES": My airtight defense of my inability to understand Joan Williams's comment is that I don't hold retrograde, chauvinistic views of what it means to be a wife. : )


 
SINGLE MOTHERS AND WIVES: RE: David's and Tom's comments, below, when I was a kid my single mother would at times come home from work, survey the piles of laundry and unmade dinner, and groan, "I need a wife!"


 
SINGLE MOTHERS WITHOUT "WIVES" (CONT.): In the comment below cited by Tom, I don't think she misspoke. I think she was trying to say that current workplace policies are based on the model of the work-all-the-time male married to the at-home-all-the-time wife. Give her credit for being clever, mixing in a straight policy comment with a sly gender-role aside in one short phrase!


 
GOD FORBID WHAT? In that notorious BusinessWeek article, Joan Williams makes an odd comment:
"[M]ost workplaces are still modeled on an outdated definition of an ideal worker -- someone who works more than 50 hours a week and doesn't take breaks to raise children," says Joan Williams, co-director of the Gender, Work & Family Project at the American University Law School. "God forbid if you are single mother trying to live up to that ideal without a wife."
Am I being too heteronormative by thinking she must have meant to say "without a husband"? [UPDATE: David explains what she meant above. It is a clever comment.]

Also, employers probably still want worker drones who work long hours and don't have to worry about kids. I doubt the such a definition of an ideal worker is "outdated." What's problematic is that our policies seem more geared to supporting ideal workers than ideal parents.


 
CHILD-FREE: Ok, the child-free people might have a *small* point. I have a child, but even I don't want to go to an expensive restaurant or a nice hotel and be overrun with someone else's children. Some places are meant to be for grownups and there's nothing wrong with that. But when I take my pretty well-behaved baby to a cheap "fast casual" restaurant, as I did for lunch recently, I don't think I deserve glares from the ladies at the next table, as occurred to me. The article that David links to starts out by saying that most parents probably think it's cute when their toddler "gets down on their hands and knees" to peer under the toilet stall at the patron next door. All I can say is, the writer must not have children. The thought of your toddler's hands touching a public bathroom floor, right by the toilets no less, makes a parent panic. Besides, I don't want my kid looking at you in your underwear any more than you do.

If the author can think of a humane way to safely restrain a toddler in sight while the parent carries out the very human need to use the bathroom, her suggestion is welcome. One tip: strollers only fit in handicap stalls, but not regular ones, at least not with the door closed.


 
DECLARING WAR ON EVERYTHING: I'm with David. Let's please reserve the term "war" for the real thing. This use of "war" to describe every response to a domestic problem always unnerves me -- I remember first feeling this way as a young kid hearing about the "War on Poverty." It seemed incongruous -- addressing the vulnerability and suffering of poverty by... declaring war on it?


 
"If I want to hear the pitter-patter of little feet, I'll put shoes on my cat": Here's an article on the growing trend of people without children complaining about people with children. As in:
For the most part, meetings of the child-free take place online, at websites such as Rant!, which last week had 35,509 messages from people who just can't stand the sight, smell or sound of other people's offspring. A quick browse showed that children who peer under toilet doors are particular pests, but so are "Dumb Moos" (their mothers) who apparently have "dumpy asses, saggy boobs and a look of defeat" on their faces.
Sweet, isn't it? Next thing you know, people will be declaring "war"over this issue.


 
"WAR! UGH! WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?": Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of The Nation, argues that President Bush is waging "war"against women and families. She's certainly not alone in believing that we are a nation constantly engaged in internal "wars."

Lots of people, especially on the right, talk about the "culture war," usually as in, "We need you to enlist!" (This is a term, by the way, that was coined by the, uh, Germans: "Kulturkampf.") Don't you see books, articles and public statements every day either declaring "war" against some allegedly terrible group or trend or activity, or dramtically announcing that some bad people have declared "war" on some innocent people? I've probably done it myself, when I was younger and dumber. And have you noticed that there seems to be a federal law mandating that everyone who runs for president constantly declare himself or herself to be "fighting for" ... (fill in the blank)?

I hate to sound like, well, a wimp, but wouldn't it be a small but discernible improvement if we reserved the word "war" and its cognates for the real thing -- as in soldiers with guns -- instead of using it so reflexively against our fellow citizens?


 
"TAKE BACK YOUR TIME" MOVEMENT:
The new movement not only seeks change in the workplace but hopes to focus Americans on the way time poverty translates into a weakening sense of community, fragmented families, illness, and a fast-food society obsessed with consumption -- the reward for working so hard. It's time to ask the big question, says de Graaf: "What is an economy for?" The answer might prove to be as stunning as the first great American experiment.




 
CIVIL UNIONS, ANYONE? (CONT.) -- FROM A U.S. CATHOLIC BISHOP:
"If the goal is to look at individual benefits and determine who should be eligible beyond spouses, then we will join the discussion," Reilly told the Judiciary Committee. The Rev. Christopher Coyne, spokesman for O'Malley, said the church is specifically concerned about addressing benefits that affect children in gay families, such as education and health. Extending these benefits would not in any way contradict the Catholic Church's commitment to matrimony, he said. "I think what's actually being said is that the benefits that are necessary for the protection of children and families don't necessarily involve any kind of a redefinition of relationship or marital status," Coyne said. Reilly told reporters after the hearing that the bill under consideration is a bad solution to a problem that could be solved through simply extending certain benefits, such as hospital visitation, bereavements rights and health insurance, to gay couples. "Just to put the title of marriage on it, I think that's a wrong way to go," he said.
I think this is the compromise, let's-all-listen-to-each-other solution. Is it just my imagination, or is it also gaining ground?


 
FROM SAUDI ARABIA:
Given the enormous rise in the divorce rate in the Kingdom � the second-highest in the world � the head of Jeddah�s marriage court, Sheikh Saleh Ahmad Habad, has called for urgent steps to address the issue ... A study conducted by Dr. Ebtisam Halawani at King Abdul Aziz University revealed that the main reason most women left their spouses was ill-treatment and violence. Most divorces occur during the first three years of marriage, the study said. Polygamy, according to Abdullah Al-Fawzan, a professor and sociologist at King Saud University in Riyadh, is responsible for up to 55 percent of divorces. He added that the loss of trust, sincerity, compassion and cooperation were also factors in the failure of marriages. The involvement of husbands in illicit relationships is a factor according to 38 percent of divorcees. Since few couples can get to know each other before getting married, the incompatibility and misunderstanding that can arise as a result often lead to separation, Professor Fawzan added.



 
INDIANA OP-ED ON "MARRIAGE SAVERS": "Let�s hope marriage program has success"




 
FROM WISCONSIN: "In a bitter debate over the sanctity of marriage, the Assembly approved a bill Thursday that would define a wedded union as being only between a man and a woman."


Thursday, October 23, 2003
 
FROM THE ONION:
After discussing the merits of both events at length, Julie and Ian Bowman, 7 and 5, agreed that their mother Ariel Binder's wedding in Galesburg Saturday was "way more fun" than their father Marcus' wedding in Peoria last March, the children reported Monday.
Thanks to Lillie Wade.


 
THE DEBATE CONTINUES: David Frum replies to Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan replies back.


 
FATHERS RIGHTS (CONT.), IN MINNESOTA:
Calling all dads! Chances are you�ve got a full work week, bills to pay, chores to do, possibly child support to pay � and kids that you don�t see nearly enough of. well, take heart � �Dads� Time� is here! Sponsored by the Fatherhood Program of Carlton County, Dads� Time is for all fathers who want to be more involved in the lives of their children. It�s as simple and straightforward as that � and it�s free!
And what are the activities of this "calling all dads" group? The story lists four: hearing from a lawyer from a Volunteer Attorney Program; discussing "Legal Issues"; discussing "Child Support Issues"; and discussing "Guardian Issues."


 
FATHERS RIGHTS IN BRITAIN (CONT.):
Fathers involved in acrimonious family break-ups will be granted significantly more access to their children under plans being considered by ministers today. Under the proposals drawn up by senior judges, parents facing traumatic custody battles will be told by experts of the damage children suffer when separated from a parent. The divorcing couple will then be required to agree a "parenting plan" which spells out the necessity for children to spend plenty of time with their fathers as well as their mothers. Mothers who refuse to comply could find fathers' access to their children increased.
Oh, is that how it will work? In cases in which everything is "acrimonious" and "traumatic", the big idea is to give the estranged father more "access" to the child? What on earth are these ministers thinking about? Would it be so hard to pay a bit less attention to the "rights" of the adults and a little more attention to the children?

I've been deeply involved in the fatherhood movement for a decade, and so I feel that I know as well as anyone that children need fathers, but what these people are doing strikes me as a betrayal of authentic fatherhood, not its expression.


 
FROM BOSTON:
As gay advocates prepared for the first-ever Statehouse hearing on legalizing same-sex marriages, key lobbyists said Wednesday that legislative support could be building for a bill that would do the exact opposite. The House and Senate are scheduled to meet in joint session Nov. 12 to consider a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman an initiative that was defeated last year by more than half of the state's 200 lawmakers ... the Massachusetts high court heard testimony on a case that could make the state the first in the country to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. A decision in that case, which was filed by seven same-sex couple who were denied licenses, has been expected since early July. The court, however, waived its own internal deadline, leaving advocates on both sides unclear how to approach the impending legislative debates.



 
FATHERS' PROTEST IN LONDON:

A protest group campaigning to change the way fathers are treated in family courts held a protest today with a huge mobile gun.

Fathers 4 Justice held the demonstration and rally in London to highlight the organisation�s efforts to ensure divorced fathers are given proper access to their children.

Michael Cox, the group�s legal adviser, said 2,000 fathers took part in the protest with one driving the Abbott self propelled gun to symbolise their �Dad�s Army�.

Police said only 350 protesters had gathered in Trafalgar Square before marching to Temple Place via the Royal Courts of Justice and Lincoln�s Inn Fields where many barristers are based.

Two members of the group, dressed as Batman and Robin, are already into the second day of a week long roof top protest at the Royal Courts.


All I can say is, yikes.



Wednesday, October 22, 2003
 
FROM THE BAHAMAS:
Why this greater freedom generally allowed young men has translated into extreme licence in The Bahamas is because of the absence of the father in the home, who would otherwise serve as disciplinarian and enforcers of the rules. This brings me back to the crux of the matter. Why are so many black homes fatherless? And why are black men so confused about our masculinity?



 
DEBATE (CONT.): Sen. Rick Santorum has something to say on marriage. Thomas Lang of The American Prospect has something to say about Santorum's argument.


 
"MAMA'S BABY, PAPA'S MAYBE": Responding to the "Unmarried America" story in Business Week, Bobby Winters explains why marriage remains important:
The article uses the language of class warfare and speaks of the "married class" and of the transfer of wealth into that "class." The unmarried, it seems, are becoming disgusted by this discrimination, and because of their increased proportion of the population, they don't feel like they have to put up with it anymore.

I find the view of marriage as a "bag of goodies" that gives great financial advantages to the married couple to be alien and repellent. It is a perspective of people who are not connected to eternity, who think of themselves and the here and now, without any consideration of those who have gone before or those who will come after.



 
The New York Times looks at families possibly hurt by welfare reform. It's too easy to dismiss the article as the Times's predictable effort to find something--anything!--negative about a successful, conservative-driven reform. Most policy decisions will have positive and negative effects, and any negative effects should give supporters of welfare reform cause for concern just as the positive effects gave them cause for crowing.


 
If two women marry one another, is each of them a "wife"?: "Husband? Wife? Same-sex marriage raises terminology questions"


 
FROM NEW YORK:
In New York, judges in divorce cases will soon be told to direct couples with children to attend parent education programs, the office of Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye said yesterday. New York is one of the last states to take steps to see that divorcing parents are instructed in ways to reduce the emotional stress on their children. New guidelines, produced by a committee appointed by Judge Kaye, are to take effect gradually over the rest of 2003.
A better approach, in my view, is to intervene with education and opportunities for counseling as early as possible, right after the divorce filing, aimed at least in part at the possibility of preventing the divorce. The "how to improve your divorce" stuff can come later. A number of places around the country are experimenting with this admittedly more ambitious approach, and with some encouraging early results.


 
DEBATE: Bill Bennett has something to say about marriage. Andrew Sullivan has something to say about Bennett's argument. These are two smart guys; the debate is pretty high-level.


 
WHO�S RESPONSIBLE? Maggie Gallagher, on the recent case of the 12 year old boy in Connecticut who committed suicide, and whose mother was charged in his death:

�Reached by The New York Times, Daniel's absent dad, John E. Scruggs Jr. (who has spent much of his life in and out of jail), said, "For the hell of (Daniel's) life, I blame myself." Remarkably decent of him, really. Especially since no one else seems to.

Nobody else seems to have noticed: Whatever her deep inadequacies as a parent, Judith Scruggs was there. She worked 60 hours a week to keep a roof over Daniel's head. Only other single mothers can know all the opportunities she gave up, all the little luxuries she denied herself, all the leisure she surrendered in what turned out to be her profoundly ineffectual, substandard and neglectful effort at parenting.

But when it came time to charge a parent, the state of Connecticut never even thought of prosecuting Daniel's father. In our new legal regime, walking out on your boy for his whole life is not child abuse, is not abandonment, is not "putting your child at risk" (which is the charge on which the jury convicted Mrs. Scruggs). Legally speaking, you have every right to leave an inadequate single mom struggling to raise kids on a Wal-Mart salary. (Your only legal obligation is to send a small check.) The only parent the state of Connecticut even thought about putting in jail is the parent who stayed.

The prosecutors claimed that this was a case about "parental responsibility." But when marriage breaks down as the normal, usual and generally reliable way to raise children, the result is that the word "parent" and "mother" become synonymous. Talking about parenting is a way to disguise a vast new legal intrusion into the lives of women who mother.

It will prove (I predict) ineffectual with those it most wants to regulate: dysfunctional, overstressed single mothers experimenting "creatively" with "fluid" family forms. �





 
YOU DECIDE: A pro-SSM blogger (morons.org) has this to say about this article.


Tuesday, October 21, 2003
 
FROM VERMONT:
The best way for a dad-to-be to find out how to deal with colicky, crying babies, diaper changes and the stress that a newly arrived child can bring to a relationship is by learning directly from an experienced father, said Kevin Murray, a fatherhood consultant with Early Education Services. This weekend, he said, prospective fathers will get a chance to learn about what to expect with a new baby at the service's "Boot Camp for New Dads," a hands-on three-hour course slated for Sunday.



 
FROM UTAH:
The key to resolving a contentious divorce could involve divorcing your attorney. That's what members of an ad hoc committee suggested to Utah lawmakers Monday during a meeting of the Subcommittee on Divorce, Child Custody and Visitation. Committee members pointed to a 12-year study of contested divorces by the University of Virginia, which showed that when divorcing parties were forced to undergo mediation instead of heading to court, 80 percent of those cases reached an out-of-court settlement. Of the cases that were not required to undergo mediation, 80 percent entered a full-blown custody hearing.



 
WHAT�S IN A NAME, cont'd -- A bit tardy, but a response to Tom�s blog below. As the child of divorced parents, I�m not a bit surprised that there is apparently an upswing in today�s 30-something women choosing to take their spouse�s name upon marrying. I grew up in a family where my mother, stepfathers, half-brother and I all had different last names. I shared a last name with my father, who I saw every summer, holidays, and some weekends, but with whom I spent far less time than my mother.

Women who see their surname, before marrying, as �theirs�, and who want to keep �their� name, strike me as women who probably grew up with married parents. In their experience the family surname was shared by everybody, even though it derived from their father before their birth.

When your parents are divorced your last name seems strongly identified with whichever parent it comes from, rather than a moniker signaling your family-of-origin identity. For that reason, and because I did not want my own children to grow up in a family with different last names, and because I loved my husband and felt welcomed by his family, changing my name upon marriage felt like an act of liberation.

I have to admit, too, that because I was on the young side when I married � almost 26 � and not yet professionally established, it felt easier to change my name than it would now.

The article Tom referred to was titled �Mrs. Feminist�, but I have to say that �Mrs.� is something different. On the rare occasions when someone calls me �Mrs. Marquardt� I first think they�re addressing my dear mother-in-law, not me. And I would never tolerate being called �Mrs. James Marquardt.� I think that�s where my generation draws the line.



 
ON WILDLY VIOLENT WOMEN IN MOVIES: My two cents: It has seemed to me since these characters first started appearing that they have absolutely nothing to do with "strong" women. These women who tear the limbs off of other people are always, shall we say, stacked, just like the rest of leading women in Hollywood movies, and if anything the clothes they wear are tighter. There is a certain kind of male fantasy of a women unburdened by pesky emotional needs, a woman who acts like a "man" but still, well, looks and feels like a woman. This is just the next evolution of that fantasy. It's a shame if our daughters think these are role models made for them, when they're just midnight fantasies of spoiled male Hollywood directors.


 
INFIDELITY:
"Those who assume that only bad people in bad marriages cheat can blind themselves to their own risk," said Beth Allen, a researcher at the University of Denver who, with colleagues David Atkins, of the Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, and the late Shirley Glass, a Baltimore family psychologist, recently completed an extensive review of infidelity research. "They're unprepared for the risky times in their own lives, the dangerous situations when, if they aren't careful, they'll suddenly be very tempted," Allen said. The prevalence of infidelity is coming into sharper focus. Several recent surveys suggest that the majority of people do not cheat, either because they cannot bear the thought of betrayal, cannot drum up the interest or perhaps have already known the profound pain of losing an important relationship. Yet the studies find that more than one in five Americans do have an affair, at least once in their lives, and that women are now about as likely as men to cross the line.
Thanks to Diane Sollee.


 
The Census Bureau report on marriage, as reported in Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Texas and South Carolina.


 
READY TO INVEST: "Our relationship is the same, maybe even better," she said, "because we have this investment together." (They are not married, but they bought a home together.)


 
STORY ON YESTERDAY'S CENSUS REPORT: "U.S. marriage trends stabilize in 1990s"


Monday, October 20, 2003
 
PRESUMPTION OF JOINT CUSTODY AFTER DIVORCE (CONT.):
The majority of babies who live alternately with their divorced parents develop long-lasting psychological problems, new research has found. Such arrangements cause enduring "disorganised attachment" in 60 per cent of infants under 18 months, says a clinical psychologist and family therapist, Jennifer McIntosh. As older children and adults, they have "alarming levels of emotional insecurity and poor ability to regulate strong emotion". Dr McIntosh called the presumption of 50-50 shared parenting, the focus of a federal parliamentary inquiry into child custody, a "dangerous idea" ... "Shared parenting in the absence of a parental relationship that can support the necessary co-operation is fraught for children, particularly pre-schoolers. Equally, shared residence, that often manifests in week-about arrangements, runs counter to the developmental needs for a secure predictable existence with their primary attachment figure, be that father or mother."



 
THE "UNMARRIED MAJORITY": In USA Today, Thomas Coleman, the director of Unmarried America, says that he is standing up for what he repeatedly calls the "unmarried majority" in the United States.

What silliness. Let's start with this group's basic premise. By any reasonable criterion, it's flatly false. The vast majority of Americans marry, and most children, thank goodness, still spend most of their childhood in married-couple homes. As I tried to show recently regarding that dubious Business Week cover story, ginning up an "unmarried majority" requires all kinds of statistical gimmicks that, when exposed to daylight, reek of dishonesty and spin.

Here's a public challenge to Mr. Coleman. Let's you and me have a civil, just-the-facts debate on the question, Is there a "new unmarried majority" in the United States? Any time or any place or venue that suites you. If you want a disinterested moderator, fine. If you want to do it on this blog, great -- I'll post the whole thing.

Mr. Coleman's op-ed is a case study in glibness. He announces that "marriage is no cure-all." Gee, thanks for pointing that out! So many of us were under the impression that marriage is a cure-all. (Did you know that marriage can cause traffic jams in Los Angeles to disappear?)

He writes: "Pouring hundreds of millions of tax dollars into 'marriage promotion' programs or 'marriage bonus' incentives may actually harm many children." Thanks for clearing that up! Mr. Coleman's researches (which he modestly does not mention) have demonstated that increasing the proportion of children growing up in married-couple, two-parent homes "may actually harm children." (Similarly, did you know that pouring millions of tax dollars into environment protection may actually harm the environment? I just thought you'd want to know.)

In his piece, Mr. Coleman also takes courageous stands against forcing young women to marry drug addicts and forcing wives to stay with husbands who beat them.

But mostly, you just have to wonder, don't you, about people who devote themselves professionally to attacking and seeking to trivialize what is arguably society's most pro-child institution?

I hope to hear from Mr. Coleman soon about the debate on "the new unmarried majority."


Sunday, October 19, 2003
 
Special report from The Economist: "Women in Iran: Shorn of dignity and equality"


 
"Don't give up on the dads behind bars":
''My dad was never around, and I had to do everything. I don't talk to my father. I don't have anything to say to him. I don't feel that father-son bond. You're looking at somebody who just got my mom pregnant.'' ''If your father had been around, do you think life would have been different?'' I asked. ''Yes,'' the inmate replied. ''Yes, I think it would have been a lot different.'' ''What did you miss?'' ''Just those simple talks about life,'' the inmates said. ''Things you should do, and things you shouldn't do. Everything I learned, I learned on my own.''



 
Just found ANOTHER piece, this one fairly long and detailed, in today's Salt Lake Tribune on the marriage movement: "I do's and . . . don'ts, deadlock over wedlock"


 
FROM PORT HURON, MI (Yes, for those of you who remember the New Left, that Port Huron):
The seminar, sponsored by Marriage and Family Builders of St. Clair County, is part of a growing national movement to save marriages as the nation's divorce rate flitters around 50%. "The divorce rate is sky-rocketing and people are investing their weekends in how to go the distance," said Randy Withenshaw, chairman of the group and a pastor at Ross Bible Church in Port Huron Township. "Marriage is an incredibly dynamic relationship and people want to grow." The three-day seminar, led by Family Life Ministries of Little Rock, Ark., focused on teaching couples skills such as communication, how to handle conflict and building romance. The lobby was filled with tables of books on marriage and parenting for sale to attendees.



 
GLORIFYING MEN: As I think about it, Ann Keaney-Cook, cited below, seems to miss the main point. The rise of this type of fantasy character in our movies and in our other entertainments -- robotically violent, omnipotent, predatory, radically unconnected to others, indifferent to any emotion other than rage and revenge -- does not "glorify men." It demeans men. It turns the whole idea of masculinity into a sick joke. In fact, in some respects I'd say that's true whether the actor is Uma Thurman or Arnold Schwarzenegger.




 
"You've come a long way, baby. Now kill someone.": Interesting essay in today NYTs on the trend of women, and not just men, portrayed as hyper-violent, predatory characters in movies such as "Kill Bill":
Ann Kearney-Cooke, who runs the Cincinnati Psychotherapy Institute and works with adolescent girls, said that these depictions of violently powerful women, often created by men, are actually debilitating to women in the real world. "What's going on is that as women have gained power economically and politically, the message has been that to be successful, you have to be like a man," she said. "That's carried through to roles like this. This acting hypermasculine is a way of glorifying men, not women."