Saturday, November 01, 2003
 
Algerian women want change to family law: "Women's rights defense societies in Algeria consider that revision of the family law which portrays woman as 'immature for life' is not enough and are demanding its abolition."


 
COLLEGE STUDENTS DEBATE SSM (CONT.): "Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry." (Student editors: watch those split infinitives!)


 
ARIZONA POLL: "Fifty-four percent of those surveyed by Northern Arizona University's Social Research Laboratory said they oppose same-sex marriage, while 42 percent support it. But 53 percent of Arizonans favor letting gay and lesbian couples form civil unions that would give them the same rights and benefits as married heterosexual couples. Forty-three percent oppose the idea."






 
Here is the "All Things Considered" piece on "Gay Marriage: Respecting Choice, Protecting the Institution."

I thought the two reporters did a very good job, and tried in some important ways to present a balanced story. Yet as I listened to it, the overall bias of the piece was still very obvious: As a society we once had this prejudice, and some unfortunately still do, but now thankfully it is being steadily replaced by tolerance, kindness, and the spread of understanding. It's just like that glowing, "look how's he's grown" story in today's NYT about Dick Gephardt.

I am not saying that these are not valid ways of understanding or reporting on this issue, just that there are more things under heaven than are dreamt of by this one idea. Call me the next time you see NPR, or the NYT, heaping praise all over people who have sincerely struggled with the moral issues involved, talked seriously and sensitively with their children, and have grown and developed ... in the other direction.


Friday, October 31, 2003


 
WORTH READING: A serious, thoughtful, respectful, sustained debate on SSM between Eric Zorn, who is pro, and Allan Carlson, who is anti.




 
DATA SHOW?: Have the social sciences in the U.S. become too dominated by quantitative methods and statistical analyses?

I think so. So many of the scholarly articles I read on marriage and the family are full of data tables, but the authors appear to me to be literally clueless when it comes to recognizing that marriage and the family are social institutions, that these institutions have structures and histories, and that they are part of something called a civilization. And if these highly skilled statisticians are oblivious to such fundamental aspects of their subject, how important can it be for the rest of us that they know about regression coefficeints?

Well, that's my take. Here's an article that summarizes both sides of the debate.




 
My friend Bill Galston is always worth reading. Here he is participatig in a debate about education and vouchers.


 
FROM ROCKY MOUNT, NC:
Single mothers head more than 50 percent of families in Edgecombe County and about 40 percent in Nash County, said Lois Watkins, director of Nurturing My Seed. Nurturing My Seed is a program at the Down East Partnership for Children that teaches absent fathers ways to strengthen their presence in their children's lives, she said.



 
COLLEGE STUDENTS ON FATHERHOOD: "Fathers be good to your daughters"

P.S. Here's a nice story from Oregon about a father-daughter program.


 
FROM AUSTRALIA:
A snipped lock of hair and a DNA test had confirmed the unthinkable: he was not the father of the child who bore his name. Legal wisdom has it that a man representing himself has a fool for a client but this man was articulate and intelligent, successful in his field. Nobody knew his case, detail by painful detail, as well as he did. So, beginning hesitantly, he made his own argument on Tuesday, trying out legal terms as if waiting for the court to erupt with laughter. He had paid his child support: $50,000 between 1996 and 2003 for the boy, now eight. He had not wanted the baby but had nevertheless raised him with love, believing the boy was his own. Now he knew he was nobody's father and he wanted his money back.



 
COLLEGE STUDENTS DEBATE SSM (CONT.): "The Case Against Gay Marriage." (This article is mostly a response to Andrew Sullivan.)


Thursday, October 30, 2003
 
FATHERS' RANTS: David is right that if one wants to suggest that certain fathers' rights activists are beyond the pale, one need only to quote them. Therefore, I quote:
Speaking of pirates that give retards a bad name, Policy Studies Inc. of Denver Colorado has changed their image. This band of profiteers, who so recently aspired to "Do socially useful work, have fun, and make money", have sown their wild oats and now only aspire to "Do socially useful work".
I don't know why I still visit Men's News Daily. Some perverse fascination, I suppose. In a recent headline they referred to as a NOW spokesperson as a "NOW sow." For a supposed "men's" site, they act pretty juvenile.

P.S. The author's bio:
Jim Untershine is a feedback control system designer who is currently using the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the teachings of Henry David Thoreau (civil disobedience) to expose Family Law in California as the exploitation of children for money and the indentured servitude of heterosexual taxpayers who dare to raise children in this country.
P.P.S. On his website, Untershine posts recordings of threatening phone calls to Child Support Services. (It's filed under "Whup Ass.")

P.P.P.S. I promise to try my best not to post any more of this fathers' rights stuff.


 
"Reclaim Your Family Time," by William J. Doherty.


 
A human interest story on a couple that has been married for 82(!) years.


 
FROM BOSTON, A RETRACTION:
The state's Roman Catholic bishops reaffirmed their opposition to gay marriage and benefits for same-sex couples Thursday, saying the media misinterpreted comments Worcester Bishop Daniel P. Reilly made at a legislative hearing on a gay marriage bill. Bishops from the state's four dioceses sent a letter - bearing the title "Don't Believe the Headlines" - to state legislators and a story was published in The Pilot, the Boston Archdiocese's newspaper, reiterating the church leaders' anti-gay marriage and anti-benefits position.



 
NPR ON MARRIAGE: I'm told that NPR's "All Things Considered" is doing a segment tomorrow on marriage. I'm one of the people they interviewed.


 
"Science agrees: Moms courageous, cool":
Kinsley found that female rats that have had one or more litters are much less stressed out when provoked than rats without pups. When he examined their brains, he found much less activity in the fear centers of the brains of mother rats. Writing in the journal Physiology and Behavior, he called the phenomenon "maternal induced neural plasticity." In 1999, Kinsley published research showing that pregnancy hormones seemed to nurture brain cells involved in learning and memory. Mother rats did better than their virgin sisters in a rat maze test. In the new study, Kinsley found that mother rats are not only smarter, but calmer and braver." There's something about pregnancy and subsequent exposure to offspring that create a more adaptive brain, one that's generally less susceptible to fear and stress," he said in a statement.



 
MORE COMMENTARY FROM A FATHERS RIGHTS ADVOCATE:
Stephen Baskerville continues to "stomp on the terra", referring to the Family Law battlefield that pits families versus government in America. Stephen Baskerville and Roger Gay teamed up to expose profiteers disguised as advocates for "Marriage" and "Responsible Fatherhood" in the recent Mens News Daily Roundtable Discussion. Tom Sylvester and Rebecca O'Neill both wondered why more scholars didn't agree with Baskerville and Gay, when they needed to count scholars who didn�t ... Families unaware of this perilous environment can take great comfort in the fact that the "winds of change" are gathering forces, due to hurricane Baskerville and others. This perfect storm is approaching, but if we are to be prepared for it, we must first shed our fear of it.
For me, the best way to show my strong disagreement with these guys, and the creepy vibes I get from them, is to quote them.




 
"CHILDREN IN THE MIDDLE":
Families in the middle of a separation or divorce may experience all levels of emotional ups and downs. These stressful times can trickle down to the children in many ways. According to information provided by Ramona Gentry of the Louisiana State University AgCenter, a survey of children indicated that the four top stressors youngsters in these situations often face are having to act as a messenger between parents, listening to one parent criticize the other, money matters and being expected to act as a spy for one parent. The LSU AgCenter is offering "Children in the Middle," a free workshop designed to address these concerns and to help teach co-parenting and communication skills.



Wednesday, October 29, 2003
 
TESTING TODDLERS: The New York Times reports on standardized testing in Head Start:
"When you get an answer from a child living in poverty, it's not a very good indicator of their capacity," said Dr. Edward Zigler, a psychologist, a founder of Head Start, and the director of the Center on Children and Social Policy at Yale University. "They have a variety of motivational factors that get in the way. If you grew up in poverty, you become wary and suspicious of adults you don't know, and testing situations."

Wade Horn, the federal official in charge of Head Start, said that extensive field testing had been done to make certain not only that the test is reliable, but also that children find it "fun, interesting and enjoyable."

The test was clearly not Nate Kidder's idea of fun. When Mrs. Stevens showed him four pictures of people with different facial expressions, and asked him to point to the one that matched the word "horrified," he bit his lip and looked at her for reassurance.
I don't know if testing 4-year-olds is a good idea or not, but I enjoyed the piece because the Times is so clearly against the policy, but tries (somewhat) to hide their slant behind "objective" reporting.


 
Andrew Sullivan's call to arms regarding the proposed federal marriage amendment.


 
In divorce court, a real snake.


 
IN KOREA: The Cabinet revised on Tuesday the much-criticized family registry law to allow women to become legal heads of family and enable children to adopt the surnames of their mother or stepfather.


 
MOTHERHOOD MAKES RATS SMARTER, CALMER, MORE COURAGEOUS:

A new University of Richmond study suggests motherhood has some less than obvious benefits, researchers reported. The study found that female rats who are mothers are smarter and calmer under pressure than their non-mom counterparts. The study also found that mother rats are more courageous. Researchers said a female's brain after pregnancy is generally less susceptible to fear and stress; although the connection was not confirmed, researchers said the phenomenon could have to do with hormonal changes in the brain during pregnancy.




 
MOVING AWAY AFTER DIVORCE -- A Men�s News Daily columnist on Gray Davis signing into law a bill that allows the custodial parent to move away from the noncustodial parent after divorce. Father�s rights groups opposed this bill, armed in part with data from a new study. Norval Glenn and David Blankenhorn critiqued the study in a recent oped.


 
JAPAN � NO PUBLIC PENSION FOR CHILDLESS WOMEN? Citing Japan�s rapidly declining population � the birthrate is now 1.32 children per woman � a reviewer in Foreign Policy notes, �Even more troubling is the cluelessness of the men who run Japan about the cause of this demographic decline. They have never been interested in why Japanese women shun marriage and motherhood�� Two new books by Yoko Haruka purport to explain why.

The reviewer concludes:
As Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi moves to overhaul the tax and pension systems, the social consequences of Japan�s motherhood-unfriendliness are becoming painfully clear. The government tax commission is now discussing how to limit the tax burden on individuals to a mere 50 percent of income over the next 20 years, without significant degradation of services. The reason: The baby bust means there will be so many fewer workers in Japan over the next couple of decades that taxes would have to rise to 60 percent of incomes or more to fund current pensions and standards of elderly health care. Worried local governments are organizing conferences these days on the causes of and remedies for [the population decline].

Even so, Japanese men still don�t seem to get it. At one of those forums, held in Fukuoka in June, former Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori asserted that women who don�t bear children are unworthy and ought to be denied public pensions. �The government takes care of women who have given birth to a lot of children as a way to thank them for their hard work. . . . It is wrong for women who haven�t had a single child to ask for taxpayer money when they get old, after having enjoyed their freedom and had fun,� Mori said. His comments received many approving male nods.




 
A college newspaper debates marriage.


 
The President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary reflects on the Sullivan-Frum exchange on SSM.


 
British "birth fathers":
'While the connection of birth mothers to the adopted child is widely acknowledged, most people would question any such ties in relation to fathers. In fact, there is little acknowledgment of their fatherhood at all,' says Gary Clapton, author of Birth Fathers and Their Adoption Experiences. Clapton, himself a birth father, spoke to 30 men who were all teenagers at the time of conception, and separated from their children at birth. 'All of them cared, and never stopped caring. For some men the adoption was the beginning of years of anguish and despair.'
I can see why, and it's impossible not to have sympathy for their suffering. But here's where I part company from this argument:
More British men than ever before are trying to track down their adopted kids. Over 1,000 birth fathers are officially registered with adoption-contact agencies and hundreds more are believed to be searching for their children independently - trawling through public records, placing personal ads and hiring private detectives ... Michael and Joseph are among the lucky ones: both are reunited with their daughters. Michael found his three years ago, and they have a fantastic relationship. In 2000, Joseph finally got to take his daughter, now 36, to the seaside. They walked hand in hand on the beach and ate ice cream. 'I turned to her and said: "You can't wet on me now!"' he laughs. 'It was very special. All I ever wanted to do was take care of my daughter.'
Now it's fantastic, special, wonderful? I wonder about that. But even if it is, the havoc that this wreaks on the institution of adoption is not worth it, in my view. Would you consider adopting a child, if you knew, regardless of the legality or supposed finality of the adoption, that a birth parent could pop up at any time, perhaps just wanting to be involved, but perhaps also demanding his or her "rights"?

It sounds harsh, but to me the truth is, if "all I ever want to do is take care of my daughter," then the best way to do that is either to be grown up yourself and married to the mother, cooperating with her to raise the child, or give the baby through adoption to another adult, married couple that will do that.


 
Here's an article from London sympathetic to the plight of divorced fathers and the goals of fathers rights advocates.




 
TWO YEARS, TWO COUNTRIES?: In 1968, Richard Poirier worries that U.S. society was waging a "war against the young." Today, Robert Samuelson worries that U.S. society caters to youth too much and that "we live in an age when people increasingly refuse to act their age."

One way to think about it is that these two authors disagree. Another way to think about it is that are writing about two different countries.


 
"LET'S CALL THE WHOLE THING OFF": In The Atlantic, Caitlin Flanagan has a fascinating review of recent books about weddings and almost-weddings. Here's a great insight:
It is this theme, of the unmooring of wedding customs and traditions from their original purposes, that propels the book most powerfully. Whereas a wedding once provided young people with a moment of transformation so powerful that even a modestly funded event was a momentous one, nowadays �with marriage an iffy bet and with most betrothed couples having already helped themselves to all the liberties of adulthood�the only way to underline the moment is to put on an elaborate and costly show. Further, there were once measures of propriety that held wedding spending in check: no large weddings for second-timers, or older brides, or couples of differing religions, or the visibly pregnant, or cohabitating partners, or couples who would have to assume large debts to throw a lavish reception, or women whose sexual history was extensive and well known. But these strictures have all eroded. With clergymen and parents no longer the guardians of wedding rituals, that role has passed to retailers and party planners, who would happily marry a pair of baboons if someone was willing to foot the bill (indeed, the summer issue of Martha Stewart Weddings included "Tips for Making Your Favorite Furry or Feathered Friend a Part of the Festivities").
And here's another:
Consider the Almost Brides, an astonishing number of whom allude in their tales of woe to children: children they have borne to their fianc�s, or to other men, or children that their fianc�s have sired with previous wives or girlfriends. That these broken engagements (many of which ended in rage fests followed by what psychotherapists usually describe as "sexual acting out" on the part of the Almost Brides) may also have constituted periods of significant loss and grieving for these children�who suddenly had to bid good-bye to a person they had expected would be a parent�goes entirely and shamefully unmentioned in There Goes the Bride. Such is the lot of children in our culture: absent stigmas on divorce or single parenting or illegitimacy, with religion often a governing factor in people's lives only to the extent that it is a boon rather than a constricting force, a child's fate in life is entirely dependent on the sexual and romantic whims of his parents. And come wedding time, the child is considered merely a cast member, a cunning little ring bearer or flower girl or�worst-case scenario�sulking adolescent in a shiny new suit of clothes, rather than someone whose life is about to be profoundly (if perhaps temporarily) affected by the events at hand.
She's really good.


Tuesday, October 28, 2003
 
A heart-breaking story from Montreal:
Once, she had an excellent relationship with her father. But since her parents divorced, the little girl has lived with her mother and cursed her father, refusing to speak to him and saying she hates him. Was the 11-year-old girl mature enough to instruct a lawyer that she didn't want to be handed to her father's custody? In a recent court decision underlining the Solomonic dilemmas often seen in family law, a Montreal lawyer has been told that he should continue to represent the girl, despite concern that she had been wrongly influenced by her mother's rancour in a bitter divorce case.



 
CIVIL UNIONS, ANYONE? (CONT.): From Australia, an interesting article that clarifies the idea of delivering more practical equality to SS couples, without formally redefining marriage. Actually, the author seems to be in favor of both, and the Howard Administration against both, but the concrete issues involved make clear what it would mean to do the former without doing the latter.


 
Hey parents, think Barbies are bad? Try Bratz.


 
"DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HYSTERIA": Re: David's post below, it's just a bit ironic that Stephen Baskerville sounds so hysterical when describing the supposed "hysteria" over domestic violence. He compares U.S. policy with Stalinist regimes and Robespierre's Reign of Terror, for crying out loud. This article is (yet another) good example of why the marriage movement should steer clear of the fathers' rights movement. It's one thing to suggest ways to reduce false claims of domestic violence, or to point out that some studies suggest a more nuanced reality than anti-domestic violence advocates often portray. But Baskerville concedes nothing to those who are honestly, deeply concerned about the very real problem of women victimized by violent men. He acts as if violence against women is a figment of feminist imagination. Stephen Baskerville calls domestic violence "a non-existent crisis." What an appalling position.

Also, this article was originally published in Human Events, which bills itself as "The National Conservative Weekly." No wonder feminists typically assume ill will on the part of conservatives. While I often disagree with NOW, the Feminist Majority, and other feminist groups, they deserve much credit for their efforts to protect women from violence. What have conservatives done to combat partner abuse? I hope they do something other than publishing articles such as Baskerville's. It's not enough to just "be against" domestic violence. (If any readers have examples of conservatives' efforts on this issue, please email me and I will post them.)


 
Commentary from a fathers rights advocate:
Perhaps this year we might celebrate Domestic Violence Awareness Month and Marriage Protection Week together, by becoming aware of how the domestic violence hoax is being used to destroy marriage and erect a police state.
Ah, sweet reason.


 
"As part of Queer History Month, the Queer Resource Center will be presenting a lecture on the status of gay unions, focusing on the legal side of the ever-evolving institution of marriage."




 
"Pre-schoolers are likely to spend as much time in front of the television or computer as they are playing outside, three times longer than the time spent reading, according to a new study that looks at the media's pervasiveness even among the very young."


 
Did welfare reform promote health? Intriguing study.


Monday, October 27, 2003
 
A new study says that women would rather marry nice guys, but would rather have affairs with rich, dominating jerks.




 
WHICH IS STRONGER, BLOOD OR A VOW? A moving exploration in yesterday�s NYT of the tragic Terri Schiavo story, in which the parents and husband of this young woman who has been in a vegetative state for 13 years are struggling over whether to withdraw her feeding tube, with Jeb Bush and the FL legislature now deeply involved. Schiavo�s husband wants the feeding tube withdrawn; her parents do not. Historically, the law has first favored the spouse in such decisions, then grown children, then the parents. But there is deep animosity between Schiavo�s husband and parents and the nature of her condition is a gray-zone to some. One thing the case highlights, though, is that the rise of life-extending technologies has coincided with the rise of divorce and other forces that have drastically weakened our notion of marriage as a permanent, lifelong bond. Which means that for some, certainly Schiavo�s parents but also some other observers in the case, the decision of her spouse of only a few years (at the time of her collapse) is open to question.

Laura Kipnis, whose quotes from and about her new book, Against Love: A Polemic, have otherwise been impressive only for their very weak and cynical understanding of marriage, makes an interesting point in this article: "There's a sort of undercurrent of mistrust and suspicion underlying the state of marriage these days," she said, "the idea that a spouse may leave you or try to murder you or having a secret life with someone else." (I won�t get into the matter here that Kipnis herself has recently contributed to the suspicion about marriage, and advocates infidelity in her book as a remedy for marital boredom.)

We do hear a lot about the impermanence and dysfunction of marriage these days � divorce, infidelity, abuse, murder. Contrast that with the bond we perceive between parents and their children (or, at least, mothers and their children): lifelong, anchored at the level of genetics, characterized by boundless goodwill from mother to child.

Will the decline of marriage � especially if marriage becomes just one of a hundred options on the �relationships menu� � affect law and practice when it comes to end-of-life decision-making? Will spouses increasingly have to prove that they really loved and were fully devoted to their husband or wife before being allowed to make medical decisions on their behalf?



 
FROM BETTINA ARNDT: "Beware the two-income trap"


 
In (Tuesday's!) Sydney Morning Herald, an op-ed by Chris McGillion on our recent report, Hardwired to Connect.


 
THE BIRMINGHAM WORKING FOR KIDS PROGRAM:
The program, created by the 30-year-old Christian Service Mission, works with referrals from Jefferson County's three domestic relations court judges. Workers identify barriers, such as having no driver's license or lack of savviness in finding a better job, that may have stalled a client's efforts in paying child support. Clients also can be referred to the program as an alternative to incarceration for nonpayment. Potter said the nonprofit Christian Service Mission started the program after looking for ways to expand its community service. "I'm really about helping men to be the dad their children need them to be," Potter said, citing President Bush's Fatherhood Initiative. Dalton was already employed when he joined the program, but Potter helped him prepare his resume, sent him on job interviews and served as a sounding board. He was also required to attend a 12-week father support group set up by the Birmingham Fatherhood Initiative, which is a part of University of Alabama at Birmingham's Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime. "They are not just hovering over you saying, `You gotta do this and that,'" Felton said. "It's just a good thing to know you have that support there."
SMALL QUIBBLE: Uh, President Bush doesn't have a "Fatherhood Initiative." These guys, among others, do.


 
THE CINCINNATI FATHERHOOD PROJECT:
Ron Jr. said he sees improvement every time he visits his dad. He talks to him about school, girls, sports and anything else that comes to mind. He says it doesn't matter to him what they talk about. The important thing is that they're talking at all. "I missed how he used to be, how he used to take care of us," Ron Jr. says. "I feel like I got my old dad back."



 
BETTER DIVORCE: Here's another article on how to mimimize the effects of divorce on children.


 
FROM SATURDAY'S WAPO: "Republican lawmakers and conservative activists are making plans to turn gay marriage into a major issue in next year's elections, with some Christian groups saying that banning same-sex unions is a higher immediate priority for them than restricting abortion."


Sunday, October 26, 2003
 
QUOTES OF THE DAY:

From Andrew Sullivan:
The premise here is that someone is trying to end this arrangement. But gay people do not want to enter into civil marriage in order to destroy it; and that claim is a grotesque assault on our good faith. Gays don't want to join the straights-only golf club in order to destroy the game of golf. They want to join in order to play golf.
From Nancy Polikoff:
Critics of gay marriage say we�ll destroy the entire institution. Maybe they�re right, and maybe it wouldn�t be such a bad thing ... Suporters and opponents of gay and lesbian rights are facing off over same-sex marriage in the wake of the Supreme Court�s decision in Lawrence vs. Texas. But the majesty of the Supreme Court�s rhetoric should push the gay and lesbian movement in another direction: abolishing the legal status of marriage for everyone ... Lesbian and gay marriage-rights activists counter criticism of their efforts by saying that the right to marry will provide a choice to gay and lesbian couples: Those who embrace the institution will have the opportunity to enter it, while those like me who find fault with it can simply choose not to marry. This choice-based rhetoric contains an enormous fallacy. When the state gives one type of relationship more benefits and legal support than others, there is inherently some coercion and free choice is impossible. Ronnie will have to marry Elaine to receive the care she needs; and if Ronnie doesn�t have Elaine, if they divorce or Elaine dies, then Ronnie�s needs are off the radar screen of the gay and lesbian movement. Lawrence vs. Texas signals the end of second-class status based on sexual orientation. The movement for lesbian and gay rights shouldn�t buy into a different hierarchy, this one based on marital status.
Andrew Sullivan is a smart guy and, I believe, a person of good will. I read his blog regularly. But he is glib. Because he does not agree with Nancy Polikoff -- a person who, as far as I can see, is just as entitled as he is to speak for the gay and lesbian movement -- he thinks he can get away with indignantly declaring in the mainstream media that Nancy Polikoff's position does not exist, and than anyone who suggests otherwise is a bigot.

Actually, anyone who is following this debate carefully -- and in particular, anyone who is following what is being published on this issue in the law journals by family law scholars -- knows that Polikoff has lots of company. Is Polikoff's view the majority view among gay and lesbian organizational and opinion leaders? I have no idea. Neither, I suspect, does Andrew Sullivan.

Memo to Andrew: If you want to respond, I'll be glad to post your comments.